TOOKEY, J.

Petitioner challenges the validity of a rule adopted by the Department of Corrections (DOC), OAR 291-124-0016(2), requiring the clinical director of DOC's Health Services to appoint the chief medical officer for each DOC institution. Petitioner also challenges the validity of DOC's "Health Policy and Procedure # P-A-02.1" (health policy), which purports to explain levels of health care services provided to inmates, as defined in OAR 291-124-0041. According to petitioner, the rule is invalid because it exceeds DOC's statutory authority, and the health policy is invalid because it constitutes a "rule," for which DOC failed to comply with rulemaking procedures. We agree on both points and, therefore, conclude that OAR 291-124-0016(2) and the health policy are invalid.

Our review of both the rule and the health policy is governed by ORS 183.400. "Under ORS 183.400(1), `any person' may petition this court to determine the validity of a rule." Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 260 Or.App. 676, 678, 320 P.3d 575 (2014). The legal basis of a rule challenge, though, is limited. "In reviewing a rule challenge under [ORS 183.400,] we may declare the rule invalid only if we conclude that it violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without complying with rulemaking procedures. ORS 183.400(4)." Id. Petitioner's challenges to the rule and the health policy fit within the limited parameters of our review. Petitioner contends that: (1) the provisions of OAR 291-124-0016(2) directly conflict with the provisions of a statute, and therefore, the rule exceeds the statutory authority of DOC; and (2) the health policy, although purportedly written to explain the provisions of an existing rule, amplifies and refines that rule, and therefore constitutes a "rule" that was not adopted in compliance with rulemaking procedures. We consider each challenge separately.

OAR 291-124-0016 pertains to healthcare services provided to DOC inmates. It provides that the "Health Services administrator" directs healthcare services, OAR 291-124-0016(1), and that the "Health Services clinical director" directs "professional oversight of clinical healthcare providers," OAR 291-124-0016(2). Subsection (2) provides, in full:

(Emphasis added.)

Petitioner argues that subsection (2) is in direct contravention of ORS 179.360(1)(f). ORS 179.360(1)(f) is part of a series of statutes pertaining to the superintendents of institutions administered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and DOC. It provides:

Petitioner contends that OAR 291-124-0016(2) "attempts to alter the statutory structure of responsibility for prisoner health care at state prison facilities." He asserts that DOC cannot require the clinical director of its centrally organized Health Services to appoint and oversee a DOC institution's chief medical officer, where the legislature has required the superintendent of each respective institution to appoint and oversee the institution's chief medical officer. DOC responds that there is no conflict between the rule and the statute.

"It is elementary that, when an administrative rule cannot be reconciled with a statute, it is the statute that controls." State v. Newell, 238 Or.App. 385, 392, 242 P.3d 709 (2010). Furthermore, for purposes of ORS 183.400(4)(b), a rule is deemed to exceed its statutory authority not only if it exceeds the express or implied authority of the statutes that the rule purports to implement, but also if the rule "contravene[s] some other applicable statute." Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or. 562, 565, 687 P.2d 785 (1984); see State ex rel. Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or. 592, 627, 260 P.3d 448 (2011) (finding that rules pertaining to parole consideration for juveniles convicted of aggravated murder, which required such juveniles to undergo an intermediate hearing process before they could become eligible for parole, were invalid because they conflicted with statutes that required all inmates to receive a parole hearing and an initial release date).

There is no significant disagreement between the parties about the meaning of OAR 291-124-0016(2). Under its provisions, the Health Services clinical director has authority over "all decisions requiring medical judgment" and appoints the chief medical officer for a DOC institution. The parties, however, disagree about the meaning of ORS 179.360(1)(f) and whether it mandates that the superintendent of a DOC institution appoint and supervise the institution's chief medical officer. In determining the legislature's intent in a statute, we apply the statutory interpretation analysis of PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009), examining the text of the statute in context — including related statutes — and examining any relevant legislative history. Gaines, 346 Or. at 171-72, 206 P.3d 1042; PGE, 317 Or. at 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143.

As already noted, ORS 179.360(1)(f) is part of a series of statutes — ORS 179.310 to 179.370 — pertaining to the superintendents of certain state institutions. "Superintendents" are defined in ORS 179.310 as "the executive heads" of the institutions operated by the OHA and those operated by DOC. See also ORS 179.321. Consequently, a "superintendent" under ORS 179.360(1)(f) includes DOC superintendents. Therefore, we agree with petitioner that, on its face, ORS 179.360(1)(f) applies to DOC and mandates that DOC superintendents appoint and supervise the chief medical officer for their respective institutions.

DOC argues that, regardless of the language of ORS 179.360(1)(f), the provisions of OAR 291-124-0016 relating to the appointment of an institution's chief medical officer are authorized by ORS 423.075.1 That statute provides, in pertinent part:

DOC argues that, because ORS 423.075 gives the DOC director authority to delegate "responsibilities and authority * * * as [it] determines to be necessary," DOC was within its statutory authority to delegate to its clinical director the responsibility to appoint a chief medical officer for each institution. We disagree. Although ORS 423.075 grants the DOC director authority to delegate responsibilities and authority, ORS 179.360(1)(f) specifically requires the superintendent to appoint the chief medical officer for the superintendent's institution. Thus, the broad delegative authority of the director is inapposite. In ORS 179.360(1)(f), the legislature carved out a particular exception to the general authority granted to the director in ORS 423.075, and it is the particular intent in ORS 179.360(1)(f) that controls. See ORS 174.020(2) ("When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, * * * a particular intent controls a general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent."); Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or. 432, 438, 198 P.3d 919 (2008) ("[I]f two statutes are inconsistent, the more specific statute will control over the more general one.").2 Because OAR 291-124-0016(2) contravenes ORS 179.360(1)(f), it is invalid.

Petitioner also challenges the validity of the health policy that "establishes the method and guidelines used to determine whether treatment will or will not be provided [to inmates] by DOC." Health Policy and Procedure # P-A-02.1. Petitioner argues that the health policy constitutes a rule that was not adopted under proper rulemaking authority and is, therefore, invalid. ORS 183.400(4). DOC contends that the health policy merely explains the provisions of an existing rule, OAR 291-124-0041(1), and, therefore, the health policy was not subject to rulemaking procedures.

OAR 291-124-0041(1) provides, in pertinent part:

The health policy establishes these same four levels of medical care defined in OAR 291-124-0041(1), and explains when treatment will be authorized under each care level. Level 1 care is routinely provided by DOC medical personnel. Level 2 care may be authorized by a DOC medical care provider, but is subject to periodic review by the medical director. Level 3 care may be provided or may be referred to the medical director, who can either approve or deny care, or form a review committee to determine, after consideration of nine factors, whether the medical service should be provided. Level 4 care is not routinely authorized.

In addition to defining each care level with language similar to that found in OAR 291-124-0041(1), the health policy gives examples of the types of medical conditions that fall within the definition. For example, the health policy defines Level 1 care as follows:

The health policy then gives examples of Level 1 care, such as "appendectomy for appendicitis, repair of deep open wound in neck, * * * burn treatment, treatment for severe head injuries, * * * [and] maternity care."

The health policy also requires that any procedure exceeding $50,000 in cost must be reviewed by a "Therapeutic Levels of Care (TLC)" committee.

Petitioner argues that the health policy goes well beyond a mere explanation of the provisions of OAR 291-124-0041 and, therefore, constitutes a rule. In particular, petitioner singles out the following provisions in the health policy: (1) the examples of medical conditions attached to each level of care definition; (2) the additional factors that the review committee is to consider in determining whether to authorize a medical condition falling under Level 3 care; and (3) the provisions requiring the TLC committee to review any medical procedure exceeding $50,000.

Our review of the health policy is limited to determining whether the health policy is a "rule" within the meaning of ORS 183.310(9). If it is a rule, then it may be invalid if it was not implemented through "proper procedures." Burke v. Children's Services Division, 288 Or. 533, 538, 607 P.2d 141 (1980).

Under the pertinent provisions of ORS 183.310(9), a rule is:

The parties agree that the health policy constitutes a "directive, standard, regulation or statement." Further, the health policy has general applicability, as it applies to all inmates who receive or may need to receive medical care while incarcerated. See Smith v. Board of Parole, 250 Or.App. 345, 350-51, 284 P.3d 1150 (2012) (holding that a notice-of-rights form that "plainly affects more than one person and encompasses more than an immediate set of facts," and is "applicable * * * to all inmates in a particular category," is a rule). The parties disagree about whether the health policy "implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or describes the procedure or practice requirements of any agency." ORS 183.310(9). We conclude that it does.

Our case law provides instruction in determining whether the health policy constitutes a rule. In Wehrman v. Public Welfare Div., 24 Or.App. 141, 143, 544 P.2d 606, rev. den. (1976), the petitioner sued a state agency when it reduced his public assistance grant based on the agency's determination that his federal income tax rebate was income that should be considered in determining the petitioner's need for assistance. The agency's determination was based on an "executive bulletin" that required a person's income tax rebate "be considered * * * income." Id. An existing rule defined "income" for purposes of determining a person's need for assistance, and there was no dispute that the tax rebate fit within the definition of income. Id. We held that the executive bulletin need not have been adopted as a rule, because it was "at most an `internal management directive' or an `intra-agency memorand[um]'" and exempt from rulemaking procedures. Id.3 The "actual basis for the administrative action was [the rule's] general definition of income." Id.

In another case, Clark v. Pub. Wel. Div., 27 Or.App. 473, 475, 556 P.2d 722 (1976), the petitioner was the recipient of food stamps and argued that the state agency had relied on an invalid provision in an agency manual when it refused to deduct from her income, food and lodging expenses she incurred when she and her daughter traveled from Coos Bay to Portland for the daughter to receive treatment for her medical condition. A rule provided that, in determining income, payments for medical costs could be deducted. Id. at 476, 556 P.2d 722. The agency manual instructed the agency to deduct "[a]ctual medically-related Transportation costs (Expenses for lodging or meals in connection with medical appointments or services are not an authorized deduction unless incurred at a medical facility.)" Id. at 475-76, 556 P.2d 722. The petitioner argued that the provision in the manual limiting lodging or meal expenses should have been adopted through the agency's rulemaking procedures. Id. at 475, 556 P.2d 722. We agreed:

Id. at 476-77, 556 P.2d 722.

We explained in Burke v. Pub. Wel. Div., 31 Or.App. 161, 165, 570 P.2d 87 (1977), the relationship that must exist between an existing rule and an "unpromulgated directive" for an agency to utilize such a directive without first adopting it through rulemaking procedures. Noting the difference in results between Wehrman and Clark, we said:

Id.

Under that case law, we agree with petitioner that the health policy sets forth more than what OAR 291-124-0041 necessarily requires.

As was the case in Clark, the phrases used in OAR 291-124-0041(1) to explain the levels of care are not "self-defining." 27 Or.App. at 476, 556 P.2d 722. The rule defines levels of care in a manner that requires health care providers to make judgments with certain general criteria in mind. In contrast, by adding examples to the level of care definitions, the health policy refines the general criteria found in the rule definitions. The effect of the examples is to direct the health services personnel to interpret the general criteria consistent with the examples given.

Similarly, by adding nine additional factors for a review committee to consider before authorizing Level 3 care, the health policy refines the rule's general requirement that Level 3 care be authorized on a case-by-case basis. The result is that the committee, and even health care providers making decisions about Level 3 medical procedures, will authorize, not on a case-by-case basis as the existing rule requires, but consistent with the nine additional factors listed in the health policy. Applying our reasoning from Burke, 31 Or.App. at 165, 570 P.2d 87, noted above, neither the examples attached to each definition nor the nine additional factors considered in authorizing Level 3 care are necessarily required by the provisions of OAR 291-124-0041(1).

The petitioner is also correct that the provision requiring the TLC committee to review any procedure exceeding $50,000 is a refinement of the rule, if not an out-right addition to the rule. The rule itself mentions cost of procedure only once — defining Level 4 care as "valuable to a certain individual but * * * significantly less likely to be cost effective or to produce substantial long term improvement." Other than that reference, there is nothing in the provisions of OAR 291-124-0041(1) that indicates any limitation on a procedure based on the fact that its cost exceeds a particular dollar amount. In light of the fact that these health policy provisions amplify and refine the provisions of OAR 291-124-0041(1), Burke, 31 Or.App. at 165, 570 P.2d 87, we agree with petitioner that the health policy is a rule as defined in ORS 183.310(9).

Nonetheless, DOC argues that the health policy is an exception to the rule definition, because it is an "internal management directive which [does] not substantially affect the interests of the public" and was adopted "within [the] agency between its officers or between employees." ORS 183.310(9)(a) and (b). In making its argument, DOC relies on this court's holding in Rogue Flyfishers v. Water Policy Review Bd., 62 Or.App. 412, 417, 660 P.2d 1089 (1983), that internal management directives have two main characteristics:

(Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) DOC argues that the health policy only affects DOC employees in their capacities as DOC employees, and DOC must take some step beyond merely establishing the policy before a public or private interest is affected.

In Rogue Flyfishers, the Water Policy Review Board had voted to instruct its staff to base future stream flow computations on the amount of water present in a given stream 80 percent of the time. Id. at 414, 660 P.2d 1089. Statutory authority empowered the board to establish minimum stream flows, so the issue on appeal was whether the computation instruction to the board staff was a rule that should have been adopted through rulemaking procedures. We concluded that the board's action was an internal management directive not subject to the rulemaking requirement, reasoning as follows:

Id. at 417, 660 P.2d 1089.

Unlike the board's vote in Rogue Flyfishers, the health policy, as applied, has a direct effect on persons other than DOC employees. It directly affects the inmate and whether the health care provider will provide medical treatment.4 Furthermore, there is no further action necessary, as in Rogue Flyfishers, before the health policy affects an inmate. A health care provider either provides or refuses to provide a medical procedure based on the provisions of the health policy.

We therefore conclude that the health policy constitutes a rule and not an internal management directive. Therefore, the DOC should have followed rulemaking procedures in adopting the health policy. Because the DOC did not adopt the health policy as a rule, the health policy is invalid.

OAR 291-124-0016(2) held invalid; Health Policy and Procedure # P-A-02.1 held invalid.