Lessons Oregon Should Learn from Its COVID-19 Response
Pandemic response hits and misses reveal underlying strengths and weaknesses of Oregon government
Do your part to Sustain the Way!
30 Oregonians have gotten us to $2,610 - keep the momentum going so we can hire a part time editor.
Will you send $20?
Donate here or subscribe below to create a part-time editor position.
Mark worked 20 years at The Oregonian in positions including business editor & editorial writer. He currently is a communications consultant.
Before I say anything else in this column, I want to acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic presented government at all levels with incredibly difficult decisions. Mistakes were unavoidable. Second-guessing was certain. And, in Oregon, even when mistakes were made the people making decisions seemed to be trying to do the right thing.
But, good intentions in difficult situations don’t mean policymakers should not strive to do better in the future by learning from this pandemic response. Oregon’s leaders, especially those in state government, can and should learn some lessons from their COVID-19 response.
There needs to be both short- and long-term plans
If good intentions assured success, Oregon would be in great shape. Oregonians do not ignore problems. We talk about them incessantly. We stage protests to make sure that everyone knows we care about the problems. We form committees to study the problems. Yet, the problems rarely get solved – and never quickly.
Why?
Looking at the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Vaccine Advisory Committee helps us understand some of the reasons that the Oregon Way is not associated with solutions the way it once was. The Committee’s website identifies these goals:
Advise OHA on the ethical principles that should guide decisions on sequencing of COVID-19 vaccines.
Review data on COVID-19 and immunization inequities.
Using the ethical principles, advise OHA on equitable vaccine sequencing.
It’s hard to argue with those goals, but they illustrate two problems that we’ve seen before in Oregon government: first, they are too vague; and, second, they ignore implementation. As a result, the most controversial decision about vaccine sequencing was a decision that did not easily fit within a framework of decisions based on equity – moving teachers ahead of seniors. And Oregon’s slow early pace of vaccinations and difficulties in scheduling vaccines meant even groups that were prioritized such as health care workers and older seniors often received vaccines later than their counterparts in states with better implementation plans.
A stronger short-term plan would have made it easier to get shots in the arms of those most vulnerable as quickly as possible. A more detailed long-term plan would have prevented drastic changes that mitigate the effectiveness of a plan and decrease public confidence in the plan and its planners.
In emergencies, excessive process and vague (though agreeable) values must be balanced against the dire consequences of delaying live-saving remedies.
The balance between process and outcomes was slightly better in the State’s response to the pandemic-induced rent crisis. In this case there was a good short-term plan – ban evictions and provide aid to landlords – and as a result there was short-term success. But the long-term plan remains a work in progress. Each time eviction bans near their end it creates confusion and angst for tenants. Meanwhile unanswered questions loom for landlords – especially the likes of Mom-and-Pop landlords relying on their properities for their livelihood.
Again, there are no easy answers, especially in emergency situations. But anxiety on all sides could have been reduced with more discussion of how landlords eventually would be made whole, or at least close to whole, and more assurances to tenants that they would not be evicted so long as government-mandated restrictions on economic activity were in place.
Technology needs to be improved drastically
Of all the government shortcomings during the pandemic, the most obvious has been the performance of the Oregon Employment Department. More than a year after the start of the pandemic, the Department still is struggling to deliver unemployment checks in a timely manner.
The Oregonian/OregonLive detailed the reasons for the failure. Their conclusion: “The meltdown at Oregon’s Employment Department that left tens of thousands of jobless Oregonians stranded for weeks or even months during the pandemic was, at its heart, a failure by state leaders and a dysfunctional agency to correct a computer problem they knew of for a decade.”
This isn’t the first time an important government program in Oregon was crippled because of technological glitches. Anyone remember the introduction of the Cover Oregon health plan? It took years to sort out the lawsuits over that bungled technological effort.
Though the specific problems that led to the unemployment check delays and the health plan fiasco were different, the underlying issue was the same. The State ignored clear warning signs about the need for better technology and focused their attention and money elsewhere.
There needs to be more of a consumer focus
Speaking of underlying issues, the biggest one in state government might be a lack of consumer focus. It’s true that government is not a business, but it still must be accountable and responsive to its boss / consumers – the people. The rollout of COVID-19 vaccines shined a light on the gap between how insiders think things should work and how the people want them to work.
Oregon relied heavily on online signups and large vaccination sites, especially early in the process when the focus was on health care workers and those 80 and older. There are two obvious problems with this approach: people in their 80s and 90s are not the most technologically advanced members of society – many don’t even have computers – and it’s difficult for them to stand in line at the Oregon Convention Center or State Fairgrounds. Even if the technology had been less balky, more elderly seniors would have had difficulty signing up for and receiving their vaccines. There clearly needed to be more drive-through options and small venues and a reliable call-in sign-up option to meet the needs of these “consumers.”
None of these issues are partisan. Everyone benefits when government operates more effectively. And it’s clear that Oregon would function more efficiently with better planning, much-needed upgrades in technology, and an increased focus on the needs of end-users. If Oregon leaders want to inoculate state government against future mistakes, they need to commit themselves to improving in these areas.
Committees, Robert’s Rules, and tech set up in the 1980s and 1990s aren’t the means to effective emergency responses. People deserve a government capable of responding when its needed most. Oregon can become that government by learning from its shortcomings.
***********************************
Keep the conversation going:
Facebook (facebook.com/oregonway)
Twitter (@the_oregon_way)
Reach out to Mark:
@mhester9777