Uncategorized Archives - Page 122 of 342 - Progressive Policy Institute

The Next Frontier of Renewable Energy is in Space, Argues New Report from PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project

Posted on August 18, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the Innovation Frontier Project, a project of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released a new report from Daniel Oberhaus, titled “Space Solar Power: An Extraterrestrial Energy Resource for the U.S.”

“As Daniel Oberhaus lays out in this fascinating report, space-based solar power is becoming an increasingly viable option for providing energy on Earth, in orbit, and for deep space exploration. The falling costs of solar power and vehicle launches allow for the creation of satellites that can collect energy from the Sun all day long throughout the year,” said Jack Karsten, Managing Director of the Innovation Frontier Project at PPI.

In his report, Oberhaus argues that space-based solar power (SSP) projects offer a solution to advancing both clean energy production and space exploration. Space-based solar power is renewable, cost-efficient, and could meet a substantial portion of the Earth’s energy needs, even in geographically distant locations. This could also provide a renewable energy source for moon bases and deep space missions.

Oberhaus’s report concludes that the U.S. must allocate substantially more human and financial capital to SSP as part of its national security, domestic energy, and space exploration strategies.

Read the report here:

Based in Washington, D.C., and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is managed by Jack Karsten. Learn more by visiting innovationfrontier.org.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

###

We Got Next…The Future of School Choice

Posted on August 12, 2021September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Progressive Policy Institute’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project and The 74 Million hosted a webinar on the future of school choice. Following a celebration of the 30th anniversary of the passage of the first charter school law in America, the Reinventing America’s Schools project looks forward 30 years, and asks what America’s public school system will look like in 2050, and who should be at the table driving change.

The event featured a panel of experts who are taking steps to shape the future of Black & Brown students in America, including Alisha Thomas Morgan, Former Georgia State Representative; Dr. Charles Cole, Founder of Energy Convertors; Naomi Shelton, CEO of the National Charter Collaborative; Jada Bolar, Executive Producer at the National Parents Union, and Patrick Jones, Senior Vice President of The Mind Trust. The event was moderated by Curtis Valentine, Co-Director of Reinventing America’s Schools Project at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

Learn more about the Reinventing America’s Schools Project here.

Watch the full event here.

Marshall for NYDN: What the far left needs to learn: Work with, not against, other Democrats

Posted on August 12, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

This piece first appeared in the New York Daily News. Read it here.

Hailed by many credulous observers as the future of U.S. politics, the progressive left is on an epic losing streak. Democratic primary voters in Cleveland last week dealt the latest rebuff, choosing Joe Biden loyalist Shontel Brown over Nina Turner, a combative acolyte of Sen. Bernie Sanders, in the race to fill a vacant congressional seat.

Brown’s upset victory followed centrist Eric Adams’s comfortable win over the progressive favorite in New York City’s mayoral Democratic primary in June, as well as recent drubbings of leftist hopefuls in primaries in Virginia and Louisiana.

Progressives also stumbled in last year’s main event — the 2020 presidential nominating contest. It began amid lavish media coverage of the jockeying by Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julian Castro and Bill de Blasio for “more progressive than thou” honors. It ended with Biden, the unfashionable old party warhorse, coasting to the nomination on his way to a resounding victory over Donald Trump in November.

The country got a preview of the left’s narrow electoral appeal two years earlier, in the 2018 midterm. No doubt Democrats benefitted from activist energy, but they won back control of the House mainly by recruiting mainstream candidates who wrested 41 swing districts from Republicans. Sanders-style progressives fared badly.

The activist left was cheered by socialist India Walton’s victory in June’s Democratic primary for this fall’s mayoral race in Buffalo. Otherwise, the campaign by Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Squad and allied activist groups to refashion the Democratic Party in their image isn’t going very well. The insurgents keep stumbling over the same obstacle and, it’s not a monolithic party “establishment” that exists mostly in their imagination. It’s grassroots Democrats, anchored by Black and Brown working-class voters and moderate suburbanites.

These voters seem to like their party and share its pragmatically liberal outlook. Like Brown, they also trust Biden and want him to succeed. No wonder they are put off by Sanders’ monotonous railing against “corporate Democrats,” or AOC’s lament that she has to run in the same party as Biden, or Turner’s infamous crack that having to vote for Biden was like being forced to eat excrement.

Nonetheless, the party’s Jacobin faction keeps insisting that its ideas are popular, even if its candidates aren’t. That’s probably true in some deep blue urban districts, but across wider geographies, the progressive catechism clearly repels voters Democrats need to build majorities. A confident prediction: In competitive races next year, you won’t hear many Democrats running on nationalizing health care and abolishing private insurance; giving affluent kids a free ride to college; shutting down oil and gas production ASAP; defunding the police, or decriminalizing illegal immigration.

It’s true that Democrats have become more liberal since 2000, especially on social issues and government spending. Even so, the party remains a heterogeneous coalition about evenly balanced between self-identified liberals on the one hand and moderates and conservatives on the other.

To understand where that coalition’s true center of gravity lies, however, you also have to take into account its generational and class cleavages.

The activist left is overwhelming white, college-educated and urban. Older and working-class Black voters are more religious and socially moderate. “The median Black voter is not AOC and is actually closer to Eric Adams,” says Stanford political scientist Hakeem Jefferson. The picture is similar for Hispanic voters, as Democrats learned to their chagrin last November when Trump made unexpected gains among blue-collar men.

In an analysis of Americans’ ideological composition in presidential years going back to 1980, Brookings scholars Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck note that one thing hasn’t changed: Self-identified liberals are still the smallest part of the U.S. electorate. They constituted 24% of the voters in 2020, compared to 38% each for conservatives and moderates. Nearly half of independent voters identify themselves as moderates.

Progressive pretensions to historic inevitability, based on America’s changing demographics, keep colliding with these electoral realities. The left has a choice to make: It can continue to hector Biden and the party to adopt purist positions that will make it difficult to win elections and govern. It can accept its role as an influential but not dominant part of a broad Democratic coalition that’s respected more for its passion and mobilizing energy than its often utopian ideas. Or it can turn Democratic Socialists of America into a real political party and try to win elections on its own.

For our country’s sake, let’s hope it’s option two. The Republicans, led by a vengeful sore loser, lacking any kind of unifying vision for the country, and stewing in paranoia and hatred of their political competitors, are incapable of governing the country.

It’s up to Democrats, working together, to right our ship of state.

Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Not a Moment Too Soon: Newsom Mandates Teacher Vaccines

Posted on August 12, 2021September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

It is good to see a pragmatic Democrat following the data. The percentage of total COVID-19 cases represented by children is growing: 14.3% in the week ended Aug. 5, compared with less than 2% for most of 2020. Until the vaccine is available to children under 12, more states should follow California Governor Gavin Newsom’s new requirement that all public school teachers to get fully vaccinated or face frequent testing. The option to remain “unvaccinated but frequently tested” should be limited to school staff with valid medical exemptions. Unvaccinated adults working in public schools, paid with public dollars, have no place contributing to the current public health crisis caused by a rampant variant that not only puts kids in harm’s way, but continues to mutate in the unvaccinated.

Children — even the vast majority who have remained physically healthy — have suffered too much in this this pandemic. With schools shuttered for significant periods spanning two school years, they have been isolated from teachers, friends, and other role models. They have been barred from sports and extracurricular activities. Some have missed meals usually provided by their school. Many have been unsupervised in households where parents are required to work in person; they have suffered through COVID-caused deaths of older relatives, and so on. We may not know the full extent of the trauma for years.

The safest and healthiest place for students to be is in school — even before academics are taken into consideration. Learning loss is real — and it exacerbates existing inequities in our public education systems. Using the imperfect but best data available, McKinsey & Company translated 2021’s spring in-school test scores of more than 1.6 million elementary school students across 40 states into “months of lost learning.” It found, compared to similar students in previous years, students on average were five months behind in math and four months behind in reading. Students in majority-Black and predominantly low-income schools were even further behind their higher-income and suburban peers, as were younger students. When considering the huge strides first and second graders usually make in learning to read, and the importance of literacy to future school work, recent reports putting those 2021 students’ average two grade levels or more behind schedule are alarming.

Newsom — unlike a handful of Republican governors who are kicking and screaming in opposition to common sense safety measures — recognizes our urgent national imperative: Ensuring our public schools open, remain open, and operate as safely as possible this fall. His decision follows the Biden administration and Congress’ leadership on this enormous task. They have sent almost $200 billion in aid to the nation’s public schools to help them rise to the challenge. Those dollars flow through the states before reaching districts and schools. The stakes are far too high to leave districts free to take the money, but ignore science and common sense.

We applaud California’s governor for being the adult in his state on this issue. The other 49 should waste no time following suit.

Tressa Pankovits is Co-Director of Reinventing America’s Schools Project at Progressive Policy Institute.

TALK POLICY: Crime in America with Assistant Professor Aaron Chalfin

Posted on August 10, 2021September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

On this segment of Talk Policy, Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman sits down with University of Pennsylvania Criminology Assistant Professor Aaron Chalfin who researches crime and policing. They discussed the recent spike in violent crime and evidence-based approaches for crime prevention. Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen!

PPI Statement on the Senate Passage of the Landmark Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

Posted on August 10, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement:

“Today, the Senate passed a $1 trillion infrastructure package that, among other things, will upgrade the nation’s aging transportation systems and waterways, extend high-speed broadband to rural America, and help the United States outcompete China for economic and technological leadership in this century.

“Given the toxic tribalism that has infected Washington since 2016, the infrastructure deal struck by President Biden and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators is a landmark political achievement. If the House does its part and passes this bill, it will be an encouraging sign that Washington is back in the business of governing after a four-year detour into delusion and demagoguery.

“PPI applauds the president as well as Senators Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin and Rob Portman for persevering through the long months of hard bargaining – not to mention carping from ideologues and partisan obstructionists in their own parties – to forge a compromise that serves the interests of all Americans. We also thank the negotiators for including several commonsense reforms PPI had called for to control costs, prioritize the most beneficial projects, and give taxpayers the best bang for their buck. This is the kind of leadership our country needs to make our democracy work again.

“We hope Speaker Pelosi will reconvene the House and take up this vital national investment as soon as possible. We also believe it should not be held hostage to other important priorities that the White House and Democratic leaders have pledged to advance using the reconciliation process.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

New Report from PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project Outlines How Pollution is Hurting the American Workforce and Economy

Posted on August 10, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

This week, the Innovation Frontier Project, a project of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released a new report from Claudia Persico, an economist and leading environmental and health policy expert, on how exposure to pollution and lead negatively impacts the American workforce and economy.

“Lead and other environmental pollutants are not only causing a public health crisis, but they are hurting the productive capacity of the American people. Children who might otherwise have grown up to invent a new supercomputer or to cure a disease are having their brain function impaired at an early age by these pollutants,” said Caleb Watney, Director of Innovation Policy at PPI.

As outlined in this must-read new report, exposure to pollutants can cause cognitive impairments, behavioral issues, and lower test scores among children. Over a lifetime, these deficits in human capital accrue through lower educational attainment, wages, and productivity. The prevalence of pollution exposure is a significant obstacle to improving health, education, and economic growth in the United States.

Persico argues Congress, the White House, and state governments should use a variety of strategies to target pollution remediation for communities that disproportionately live and attend school near pollution sites, or live near high-risk sites, or live in older homes with pipes and paint that release lead into the air and drinking water. Persico suggests regulators act quickly to:

Raise Clean Air Act standards to close racial gaps in pollution exposure

Change zoning laws to keep children, schools, and daycares away from toxic sites

Accelerate cleanup of Superfund, Toxic Release Inventory, and other toxic sites.

Remediate homes with flaking lead paint to reduce blood lead levels in children

Increase lead screenings for children and use results to target homes for remediation

Use infrastructure spending to replace HVAC systems in schools and lead pipes in homes

Read the report here:

Based in Washington, D.C. and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is managed by Jack Karsten. Learn more by visiting innovationfrontier.org.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Carolina Postcard: Will Pat McCrory Pop Trump’s Balloon?

Posted on August 9, 2021September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Former Governor Pat McCrory is something of a political punching bag in North Carolina. But he could go from chump to champ in 2022 if he shatters the conventional wisdom that the state Republican Party belongs to Donald Trump.

In June, Trump endorsed Congressman Ted Budd in the 2022 Republican Senate primary. Conventional wisdom saw that as a mortal blow to McCrory.

But two Republican strategists in North Carolina – Paul Shumaker and Carter Wrenn – think McCrory, like Toto in The Wizard of Oz, might expose the man behind the curtain.

The Charlotte Observer reported that Shumaker, who is working with McCrory’s campaign, “released polling last month in a memo arguing that (Trump’s) endorsement might actually hurt a Republican’s chances in the general election.”

Noting that “the memo was not paid for or commissioned by the McCrory campaign,” the Observer said:

“Among the unaffiliated voters cited in Shumaker’s poll, 47% said they would prefer a candidate who pledged to help President Joe Biden’s agenda over one who voted against certifying the presidential election results…. Just 30% said they would prefer a candidate who voted against certifying the election, and 23 percent declined to answer.”

Budd voted against election certification, while McCrory said he would have voted to certify Biden as the winner. They’re running to succeed retiring Senator Richard Burr, who was one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump for inciting the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

The poll Shumaker cited said voters prefer a Biden-endorsed candidate over one endorsed by Trump by 49-39%. Shumaker wrote:

“When comparing a Trump endorsed candidate to a Biden endorsed candidate, (Republicans’) advantage with the Unaffiliated voters evaporates. Candidates for state and federal office at any level who are on the wrong side of these issues will alienate suburban voters and jeopardize Republicans’ chances of winning in 2022.”

Shumaker isn’t a disinterested source, of course. And his poll was about the general election, not the primary. But Carter Wrenn isn’t working for anybody, and he wrote in his blog about a national poll that found weakness in Trump’s support among Republicans:

“Half the Republican primary voters…said Trump’s endorsement didn’t matter to them; the rest split, some for Trump’s candidate, some against.”

Wrenn said “Texas’ Special Election confirmed the numbers didn’t lie.” Trump’s candidate lost a special congressional race there last month. Trump’s candidate won a special primary in Ohio, but that’s a safe Democratic seat.

Wrenn and Shumaker are both smart, veteran strategists – from different wings of the party. Shumaker is from the Burr/Jim Martin/Jim Broyhill tradition. Wrenn is from the more ideological Jesse Helms school.

McCrory, like Shumaker, came out of the Charlotte- and Western-based Chamber of Commerce, country-club, big-business wing. He was elected governor in 2012, when nobody imagined a President Trump. He lost reelection in 2016 even though Trump carried North Carolina.

McCrory’s GOP pretty much was the state party until 1972, when Richard Nixon and Jesse Helms began bringing in white voters who didn’t like the Democratic Party’s liberal tilt, especially on civil rights.

The party changed again in the 1980s with an influx of white evangelical Christians, led by Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. They opposed abortion, and they wanted tax subsidies for all-white Christian academies.

Now the GOP has changed again as Trump has brought in displaced and disaffected working-class whites – as well as the neo-Nazi, QAnon, Confederate-flag-waving white supremacists like those who attacked the Capitol.

The Senate primary next year will tell us whether North Carolina Republicans are more at home with the Chamber of Commerce or with the Proud Boys.

Links:

Charlotte Observer story: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article253118418.html

Carter Wrenn blog: https://talkingaboutpolitics.com/echoing-a-proverb/#.YQlW645KiM8

Texas primary: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/27/susan-wright-jake-ellzey-texas-6-congressional-seat/

Ritz for The Hill: The bipartisan infrastructure bill gives taxpayers a good bang for their buck

Posted on August 6, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As senators prepare to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill they negotiated with President Biden, they should be applauded for incorporating several provisions that would help control costs and give taxpayers the most bang for their buck.

One of the reasons infrastructure projects cost significantly more in the United States than similar ones in other countries is our byzantine permitting process. The bill directs permitting agencies to cut average approval times to less than two years for major projects and includes several provisions to help make that happen without sacrificing important social and environmental protections.

Read the full piece.

America’s Public Schools Must Open in the Fall — Safely

Posted on August 5, 2021September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the delta variant drives up infection rates in every state in the nation, Americans face an urgent national imperative: Making sure our public schools open and operate safely this fall. We can’t allow our children to suffer another round of large-scale learning losses as they did the previous two school years.

Learning loss is real — and it exacerbates existing inequities in our public education systems. Using the imperfect but best data available, McKinsey & Company translated 2021’s spring in-school test scores of more than 1.6 million elementary school students across 40 states into “months of lost learning.” It found, compared to similar students in previous years, students on average were five months behind in math and four months behind in reading. Students in majority-Black and predominantly low-income schools were even further behind their higher-income and suburban peers, as were younger students. When considering the huge strides first and second graders usually make in learning to read, and the importance of literacy to future school work, recent reports putting those 2021 students’ average two grade levels or more behind schedule are alarming.

To avoid compounding such losses, schools must safely reopen their classrooms for in-person instruction for students of all ages. At the onset of the pandemic, in their haste to slow the spread of the virus, state and local governments too frequently closed public schools for prolonged periods as a first resort, rather than as a last measure. The second back-to-school under COVID must be different.

Read the full post here.

New Report by PPI Finds U.S. Spending on Broadband and Telecom Declining as Share of Economy, With Better High-Speed Internet Coverage than Europe

Posted on August 2, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that the telecom and broadband industry is providing increased coverage and speeds while absorbing a smaller share of consumer and business expenditures. Meanwhile, Americans enjoy better access to high-speed internet than their European counterparts. The report, titled “The State of U.S. and European Broadband Prices and Deployment” is authored by Dr. Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI and Elliott Long, Senior Economic Policy Analyst at PPI.

“The data is clear: America is actually doing much better in deploying broadband to urban and rural areas, compared to our European counterparts. We live in an increasingly digital age, yet the broadband and telecom industry revenues are a smaller share of the economy, which suggests these providers are giving consumers and businesses more services for less money,” said report authors Dr. Michael Mandel and Elliott Long.

While some in the United States claim the broadband industry is performing poorly compared with the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission’s International Digital Economy and Society Connectivity Score, which measures fixed and mobile broadband deployment and adoption, fixed broadband speed, and fixed broadband price, found the U.S. to rank very close to the top EU countries in 2018, and well above the EU average.

Read the report here:

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

The State of U.S. and European Broadband Prices and Deployment

Posted on August 2, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

INTRODUCTION

It’s common for critics to unfavorably compare broadband prices in the U.S. to Europe. The Open Technology Institute’s (OTI) Cost of Connectivity 2020 study reported that “people can still expect to pay more for internet service in the United States than in Asia or Europe.”¹There is often talk of a “broadband affordability crisis,” which presumably Europe is not suffering from.

Indicators of an “affordability crisis” would typically involve consumers getting less for more. An affordability crisis involves price increases outpacing other parts of the economy and the access to the good or service being less attainable to more and more people.

In this paper, we consider a wide range of evidence available and provide our own new analysis to evaluate claims of a “broadband affordability crisis.” First, we review several international comparisons of broadband prices alongside the data on differing deployment. Any consideration of how U.S. broadband prices stack up must take into account such deployment differences as well. Second, we provide a new analysis showing how broadband and telecom industry revenues have significantly declined as a share of the overall economy. This suggests that in an important sense, the broadband and telecom industry is providing far more services to consumers and businesses while absorbing a smaller share of spending.

While some in the United States claim the broadband industry is performing poorly compared with the other side of the Atlantic, Europeans are not so sure that they are leading the broadband race. The European Commission’s International Digital Economy and Society Connectivity Index, which measures fixed and mobile broadband deployment and adoption, fixed broadband speed, and fixed broadband price, found the U.S. to rank very close to the top EU countries in 2018, and well above the EU average (Table 1).²

In particular, data shows U.S. broadband providers provide much better coverage than their European counterparts. Consider France, for example. The typical price for broadband in France — when you can get it — is relatively cheap, both compared to the United States and other European countries. However, as of 2019, 50% of French households did not have access
to broadband speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) or more.³In the same year, only 8% of the U.S. population did not have access to wired broadband speeds of 100 Mbps or more, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).⁴Similarly, as of 2019, 38% of French households did not have access to broadband with download speeds of 30 Mbps
or more. The comparable share of the U.S. population was 4%. Even if the U.S. figures overstate the availability of broadband, as some argue, the gap is enormous.

Indeed, the distribution of broadband service at various speeds is extremely uneven in European countries compared to the U.S. For example, Lyon, France, has 98% coverage at the 100 and 30 Mbps speed tiers.⁵ Yet in the commune of Dagneux, just 15 miles outside Lyon — with a population of roughly 5,000 — only 4% of residences and businesses were eligible for 100 Mbps speeds and only 13% were connectable at 30 Mbps speeds.

Similarly, Bonn, Germany, enjoys 99% coverage at the 100 Mbps speed tier and 100% coverage at the 30 Mbps speed tier.⁶ But in the Grafschaft municipality, approximately 15 miles outside Bonn — with a population of roughly 11,000 — speeds of 100 Mbps were available to only 29% of the population and 30 Mbps was available to 71%. By contrast, in Columbia, Illinois, 15 miles outside St. Louis, with a population of roughly 11,000, 95% and 100% of the population had access to 100 and 25 Mbps speeds with two or more providers, respectively.⁷

The link between low prices and weak deployment shouldn’t be a surprise. European broadband providers have been underspending their U.S. counterparts for years, focusing on dense cities rather than the more-expensive-to cover, low-density areas. A network that serves lower-density areas will inevitably be more expensive for everyone, even if an attempt is
made to keep costs segregated.

Our second piece of analysis is a different but complementary way to see if the cost of broadband is increasing or decreasing. Instead of studying individual prices, which are difficult to track given various fees and differing plans,
we look at total revenues from operation booked by broadband and telecom providers as a share of the overall economy. This measure accounts for all charges and fees being collected from consumers and businesses.

Since 2000, total broadband and telecom revenues have grown much slower than the economy as a whole. As a result, broadband and telecom revenues have shrunk more or less steadily from 2.7% of the economy in 2000 to 2.1% in 2019, imposing less of a burden on consumers and businesses even as they use much more data. By contrast, the revenues
being collected by sectors such as healthcare,

Read the full report here:

HELP IS HERE: The Child Tax Credit and How It’s Helping Working Families, with Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX)

Posted on July 29, 2021September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

On this week’s Radically Pragmatic Podcast, Veronica Goodman, Director of Social Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), sits down with Representative Veronica Escobar (TX-16), to discuss the Child Tax Credit.

For context, The American Rescue Plan Act, crafted by the Biden Administration and passed by Congressional Democrats, included a historic expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Qualifying families will see an increased tax credit of $3,000 for each child between the ages of six and 17 years old and $3,600 for each child under the age of six. The increased credit funds — $250 for children between six and 17, and $300 for each child under six — will be provided monthly, giving over 36 million eligible families relief as we recover from the pandemic. The expansion of the Child Tax Credit could lift one-half of all children in America out of poverty.

Families who are eligible for the CTC but have not received their monthly payment should visit IRS.gov or whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

Dental insurance: Plans without protections

Posted on July 29, 2021 by The Progressive Policy Institute

INTRODUCTION

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) instituted new regulations on health insurance plans. One of the biggest changes was that large health plans are now required to spend 85% of health insurance premiums on health care services and smaller and individual health plans are required to spend 80%. The remaining 15% – 20% of premium revenues can be used for administrative costs and profits. These so-called Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rules require that plans return excess premium revenues as rebates to beneficiaries.

In a year like we just had, where consumption changed dramatically from what health insurance actuaries predicted, MLR rebates protect consumers. Health insurers are returning $2.1 billion in MLR rebates in 2021 because people used fewer health care services in 2020 than had been anticipated and priced into premiums.¹

But dental insurance plans were exempt from ACA reforms and are not subject to these MLR rules. Some dental health plans have spent as little as 4% of premiums on actual dental care.²Additionally, they typically have annual maximum benefit limitations and high cost-sharing. All and all, patients often get a bad deal on dental health plans.

Last year, spending on dental services dropped 20%.³But most consumers and employers won’t see that money returned to them through rebates. Instead, it will line the pockets of dental insurance companies as a nice windfall.

But if we wouldn’t let health plans keep the excess premiums, why do we continue to let dental health plans go unchecked? This brief
outlines why it’s important to subject dental health plans to the same regulations as medical health insurance.

BACKGROUND

It’s an accident of history that oral health is treated separately from our medical system. When early dentists wanted to join the Medical College at the University of Maryland, the physicians refused them entry. Dentists set up their own line of study and that divide lives on. Fewer than 1% of health plans include dental benefits — usually dental health plans are purchased separately, often from a different company — to fill in what health plans leave out.⁴

Roughly 80% of Americans have some form of dental coverage.⁵ Of those with coverage, roughly two-thirds have private dental coverage, usually offered by an employer, though about 7% of Americans buy stand-alone dental plans through or outside of the ACA exchanges.⁶ Of those with private coverage, 77 million are in self-insured plans that are governed by the federal government and 88 million are in plans that are regulated by the states⁷. The remaining third have publicly funded coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, TriCare, or Medicare Advantage.

But even those who have employer-sponsored dental coverage often don’t get a great deal. A typical dental insurance plan offers what is known as”100-80-50″ coverage. This means the plan will pay 100% of the cost of routine preventive cleanings. Then it will cover 80% of the cost of basic services such as fillings or root canals, and 50% of the cost of major procedures such as crowns and bridges. Usually, there is a maximum benefit of $1,000-$2,000 per year. While only 6% of people exceed their maximum benefit per year, requiring one crown can cost over $2,000 — blowing through the maximum benefit.⁸

Dental costs have been increasing for decades. Between 1996 and 2016, per capita dental care expenditures increased 27%.⁹ Expenditures for dental services increased from $43 billion in 1996 to $96 billion in 2015 — a 200% increase.¹⁰ In 1996, the mean annual expense for a dental visit was $374, or $564 when adjusted for inflation, but by 2015, that had increased to $696. But the average dental plan benefit has not changed in 50 years. In 1970, a $1,000 benefit was worth about $6,909 in 2021 dollars.¹¹ Yet, some plans still have a $1,000 maximum benefit in 2021 which no longer provides the same level of coverage because of inflation.

Download and Read the Full Report Here