Category: Uncategorized

Al Jazeera America: Bill Clinton’s legacy re-examined as Hillary Clinton ramps up campaign

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in a piece by Al Jazeera America regarding the influence of Bill Clinton’s legacy as President on Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

Others said that Hillary Clinton, facing a far different country from the one Bill Clinton governed in 1990s, will have to stand on her own merits. For those who remember the era, his record is on balance an asset.

“I don’t think she’s going to have to relitigate the goods and bads of her husband’s legacy. I think generally it’s going to help her with boomers who remember the Clintons’ years as positive ones — years of growth, prosperity and peace and shared prosperity, at that. The ’90s were a great decade for the country for both upward mobility and for sharing the fruits of growth,” said Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., that promotes center-left policy proposals and worked with the Clinton White House.

He added that it was unfair to judge the policies of the past by the much-evolved standards of the present, particularly on social issues.

“If you went back to 1972, I wouldn’t expect the Democratic policies to hold up in the 1990s any more than I expect the policies of the 1990s to hold up now,” he said. “People have to be judged by the standards and reference points of their time.”

Read the piece in its entirety at Al Jazeera America.

 

Mandel: Eliminating an Obsolete Regulation at the FCC (Updated)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Update (6/11/15): PPI applauds the FCC’s adoption of the “effective competition” order on June 2 (explained below). This order acknowledges the reality that on most cable systems, the video channels subject to “effective competition” from other providers, both satellite and landline. The FCC order says in part: “As a result, each franchising authority will be prohibited from regulating basic cable rates. unless it successfully demonstrates that the cable system is not subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition.”

This is not the FCC making new law…rather, this is the FCC enforcing the provisions of existing law, which clearly states the conditions under which basic cable service rates can be freed from local regulation.  Given the importance of eliminating or rewriting outmoded regulations wherever possible, the FCC has done the right thing.

 

5/13/15

PPI favors the elimination or rewriting of outmoded regulations wherever possible. We believe that clearing the deadwood of obsolete rules is a win-win for consumers, workers, and businesses, allowing regulators to focus limited resources on more important issues while freeing companies to innovate faster.

That’s why we strongly favor FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to streamline the “effective competition” rule for cable video providers. Cable television has long been one of the most regulated industries in the economy, including regulation of their rates by local authorities. The justification for such price controls—not acceptable for most industries—was the lack of meaningful competition from other video providers.

But the world has changed. Today many if not most cable video systems face a wide range of competitors from satellite providers such as DISH and telecom companies such as AT&T and Verizon, not to mention new internet-based video services such as Netflix and Amazon.

The legislation governing cable operators allows them to be relieved of some regulatory burdens—including rate regulation by local authorities–if the FCC rules that they face “effective competition.” The legislation includes several possible tests for effective competition, including a satellite video provider or other competitor having 15% of the pay video market, or if a phone company is offering video service in the area.

These hurdles are not hard to reach, given the prevalence of satellite and other video competitors. As a result, the FCC has ruled in favor of effective competition on almost all the hearings on this subject since 2013.

Nevertheless, up to now, cable video companies have had to go through a long and burdensome process to get regulatory relief. That is why Wheeler is proposing to simplify the process by adapting it to market realities. Challengers would have to demonstrate that effective competition did not exist in a particular location. The net result is that a larger number of cable video providers would have greater freedom to compete and innovate.

Given the amount of competition to cable, it is unlikely that cable video rates would suddenly jump. After all, with the prevalence of alternatives, and subscriber growth having topped out, why should cable companies drive away customers?

We have had disagreements with Chairman Wheeler, particularly around the Open Internet issue. But on this issue, his approach to cleaning up the regulatory process makes excellent sense for both consumers and companies.

PRESS RELEASE: A Moment of Truth for Pro-Growth Progressives on Trade

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON–Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, today released the following statement prior to a vote on Trade Promotion Authority in the House of Representatives:

“Opening overseas markets to U.S. exports is integral to putting America back on a high-growth trajectory. PPI therefore urges pro-growth progressives to support President Obama’s major trade initiatives. To conclude trade agreements that advance U.S. interests, this President, like any president, needs Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). What’s more, TPA enables Congress to identify its key objectives for U.S. trade policy.

“As PPI has detailed in recent reports on the Obama Administration’s trade agenda and open digital trade, new U.S. trade agreements can make vital progress on issues that are important to Democrats and progressives. They can, for example, tap a growing global middle class to fuel more inclusive American economic growth, strengthen and expand the reach of rules on labor rights and environment protection, and ‘democratize’ trade by empowering entrepreneurs, small businesses, and consumers to more directly participate in and benefit from global commerce.

“TPA would provide a fairer and considerably more open process for considering new trade agreements, and would obligate future administrations—both Democrat and Republican—to pursue other progressive priorities in future trade agreements, as well. Without TPA and the important new trade initiatives that it would enable, other countries—particularly China—would have much greater influence in setting global trade norms that fail to reflect high standards or progressive goals.

“Key Democratic and progressive constituencies support TPA and new trade agreements. In endorsing TPA, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has emphasized that expanding trade is critical for good jobs in America’s metro areas, which depend on exports for fully one-third of their economic growth. And, according to recent opinion surveys, Democrats (58 percent), millennials (69 percent), and Hispanics (71 percent) all believe that free trade agreements are, on balance, good for the United States.

“PPI applauds those House Democrats who have stood up forthrightly for liberal trade and TPA. As the House takes up TPA tomorrow, we hope others also will reject the spurious arguments and bullying of anti-trade activists who yearn for the industrial landscape of the 1970s and imagine that Americans can prosper in isolation from the rest of the world.”

###

 

The BEPS Effect: New International Tax Rules Could Kill US Jobs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tax avoidance by multinationals, and the creative use of loopholes, has long been part of the international tax system. Governments have usually responded with targeted measures to close those loopholes. But after the Great Recession, many national governments faced extraordinarily tight budgets and huge debt burdens. It was therefore especially galling for politicians in the United States and Europe to see large profitable multinationals such as Google, Apple, and Starbucks apparently paying less than their “fair” share of taxes.

In response, in 2013 the finance ministers of the world’s largest countries—the group known as the G20—and the OECD initiated a sweeping reassessment of the global tax system known as the “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) Project. The OECD tax experts at the BEPS Project, based in Paris, were told to develop a set of principles to “ensure that profits are taxed where economic activities generating the profits are performed and where value is created.”What’s more, they were also told to finish their work on an accelerated schedule, by the end of 2015.

It is now the middle of 2015, and the broad outlines of the new BEPS principles are becoming clear. This paper examines these new principles, as laid out by the BEPS project, and analyzes their likely impact on tax revenues and jobs. We find that unless Congress and the Obama Administration act quickly to reform the U.S. corporate tax system, the BEPS principles give multinationals a very strong incentive to move high-paying creative and research jobs from the United States to Europe.

Download “2015.06-Mandel_The-BEPS-Effect_New-International-Tax-Rules-Could-Kill-US-Jobs”

The Daily Beast: California Democrats Should Heed Obama on Trade, Not Labor

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If any state ought to be pro-trade, it’s California. America’s second-largest exporter, after Texas, the Golden State boasts 840 miles of coastline rimming the burgeoning Asia-Pacific economy, as well as the nation’s busiest port, Los Angeles. Trade supports the jobs of more than 1 in 5 Californians.

Yet most of California’s overwhelmingly Democratic Congressional delegation refuses to support President Obama’s trade agenda.

Only two of the state’s 39 House Democrats – Reps. Ami Bera of Sacramento and Jim Costa of Fresno – have publicly backed Obama’s request for trade negotiating authority (or TPA in Washington speak). The rest are either opposed or undeclared. Has this famously entrepreneurial, outward-looking and future-oriented state suddenly caught the protectionist virus?

Not likely. It’s true that trade has become a tough issue for Democrats in recent decades as California has become more liberal. But the White House did manage to muster double-digit support among House Democrats there for pacts with Korea and Panama. The paucity of support this time may reflect Obama’s declining clout, but it’s also a testament to the success of a ham-fisted campaign of political intimidation spearheaded by organized labor.

In a raw display of financial muscle, the AFL-CIO has frozen all contributions to Democrats until after the TPA vote. Not only that, but labor and anti-trade “progressives” promise to spend lavishly on primary challenges to defeat Democrats, and if that doesn’t work, to spend more against them in the general election – to the benefit of Republicans.

Remember that the next time you hear progressives bemoaning the sinister power of money in American politics.  It’s insidious all right, but it’s hardly confined to the Koch brothers and right-wing super PACs.

Continue reading at the Daily Beast.

The Washington Post: It’s hard to be a moderate politician. It’s also more expensive.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Anne Kim wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post comparing liberal versus moderate Democratic campaign spending. Her analysis shows in the past three election cycles, self-described moderate lawmakers spent roughly twice as much as their liberal counterparts to win or defend their seats. In 2014, moderates outspent their liberal colleagues by a margin greater than 3 to 1 when all campaign spending is included.

This analysis is a follow up to a 2011 policy memo by Kim, The “Centrist Premium”: The High Cost of Moderation. 

Read Kim’s opinion piece for The Washington Post here.

The Hill: Can this Congress agree to agree?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Political gridlock is a problem, but in a 50-50 country you have to expect some issues will be hard to move forward.  In today’s Washington, however, Congress is stuck and immobilized even on issues where most of its members agree.  That’s gridlock on steroids, and it’s destructive to our civics.

Consider the recent debate over the Internet protection rules called net neutrality. These rules aren’t controversial – leaders of both parties and probably two thirds or more of the members of Congress agree that all traffic should move freely on the Internet and that Internet providers should not be able to block lawful websites or relegate competitors to second-class “slow lanes” online.

But despite this broad consensus, Congress has refused to act, leaving net neutrality in a litigation limbo that could last 3 years or more.

Some Republicans refuse to pass a net neutrality law because they aren’t willing to give a President they dislike a win, even when they agree with him.  Some Democrats won’t budge because they would rather hold on to the more intrusive “utility-style” style regulatory approach employed by the FCC that goes far beyond what is necessary to protect the open Internet.

The result is a too-familiar story of a government that fails to act through normal channels, leaving the rest of the government to scramble for “work-arounds” and half-measure solutions.

The Federal Communications Commission has attempted to fill the gap left by a congressional inaction with its own set of Internet regulations.  But due to the politics of the agency and potential gaps in its legal authority, the FCC rules go far beyond consensus net neutrality reforms, putting the entire Internet ecosystem at risk.

Continue reading at The Hill.

The Wall Street Journal: How the FCC Will Wreck the Internet

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Federal Communications Commission injected a considerable amount of uncertainty into the high-tech sector in February when it reclassified Internet service providers (ISPs) as public utilities. If it is upheld by the courts, the Open Internet Order—which inserts the government directly into private dealings between ISPs and firms that generate or aggregate Internet content—will drag down investments in new networks and infrastructure and slow down innovation.

In a new paper for the Progressive Policy Institute, I estimate that ISP capital expenditures will fall between 5% and 12% per year relative to 2014 levels—based on experience in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the last time telecommunications companies were subject to public-utility rules.

This may not sound like much, but ISPs invested nearly $77 billion in 2014. A 5% drop means billions in network upgrades forgone. Thousands of jobs would also be lost—20 jobs for every million dollars of fiber investment, according to a paper I co-wrote with Jeffrey West in 2010. The losses won’t be limited to ISPs. Investment in new networks propels innovation everywhere, thanks to faster connections and greater capabilities.

From the late 1990s to 2005, telecommunications firms were required to offer a component of their DSL Internet service on a common-carrier basis. During that period their broadband investments grew at a significantly slower rate than those of cable competitors who were not subject to the utility regulations.

Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal.

PPI Applauds Senate Passage of TPA

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI applauds the Senate for passing Trade Promotion Authority and taking a key step in assuring that America continues to be a global leader in crafting strong, progressive trade rules that will help grow our economy and support good jobs—while also advancing important American values.

As PPI has detailed in recent reports on the Administration’s trade agenda and open digital trade, new U.S. trade agreements can make vital progress on issues that are important to Democrats and progressives. They can, for example, tap a growing global middle class to power more inclusive American economic growth, expand the reach of strong rules on labor rights and environment protection, reform past agreements like NAFTA, and “democratize” trade by empowering entrepreneurs, small businesses, and consumers to more directly participate in and benefit from global commerce.

TPA would provide a fair and more open process for considering new trade agreements, and would obligate future Administrations—both Democrat and Republican—to pursue these and other progressive provisions in future trade agreements, as well.

Finally, today’s vote illustrates the leverage that pro-growth, pro-trade Democrats can exercise in trade debates. As trade legislation moves to the House, PPI urges Democrats to continue to work constructively to build smart, progressive policies that enhance America’s global competitiveness. In addition to support for TPA, these efforts should include a comprehensive program of reform—in education, training, innovation, infrastructure, and more—like that proposed in the New Democrat Coalition’s American Prosperity Agenda. Unlike reflexive opposition to new trade initiatives, this approach will assure that America—and more Americans—can share in the significant benefits of global growth.

Three Ways The FCC’s Open Internet Order Will Harm Innovation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Federal Communication Commission’s 2015 Open Internet order threatens innovation in three distinct ways. First, by barring paid priority arrangements, the order undermines innovation in the nascent market for real-time applications like telemedicine and HD voice. Second, because sponsored-data plans (including zero-rating plans) may run afoul of its “general conduct” standard, the order could discourage procompetitive offerings that would subsidize Internet access for low income Americans. Third, by reclassifying Internet service providers (“ISPs”) as telecommunications providers under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, the order will likely slow the flow of investment dollars by ISPs, which will adversely affect innovation.

This Policy Brief examines the potential harm to innovation in qualitative terms, and where possible, in quantitative terms. The major findings are as follows:

  • The nascent markets for certain real-time applications, including telemedicine, virtual reality, and HD voice, are expected to develop into billion dollar industries in the coming years. Although no application needs priority to function per se, there is a class of applications that need a certain level of quality of service that is not always consistently available on networks, especially across wireless networks that are subject to congestion. The ban on payments for priority arrangements could undermine certain collaborations among ISPs and websites/application providers (“content providers”), and thereby thwart a non-trivial portion of these applications from taking root, potentially costing the U.S. economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
  • By discouraging ISPs and content providers from pursuing different ways to subsidize Internet access for consumers—another form of collaboration—the order could deny the poorest Americans hundreds of millions in benefits annually. There are millions of Americans for whom broadband is just out of reach and who would otherwise be eligible for a subsidy in the form of a sponsored-data plan.
  • Subjecting telecommunications companies to Title II in the early 2000s caused their capital expenditures to decline by between five and thirteen percent under conservative assumptions. Exposing ISPs to the same regulatory risk could undermine core investment to the same degree. Based on U.S. Telecom’s estimated $76 billion in aggregate capex among U.S. ISPs in 2014, such a reduction would amount to between a $4 and $10 billion decline in investment at the core of the network.

 

Download “2015.05-Singer_Three-Ways-the-FCCs-Open-Internet-Order-Will-Harm-Innovation”

The Blame Game: Multinational Taxation in an Era of Knowledge

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

U.S.-based companies such as Google, McDonalds, Starbucks, Apple, and Mi-crosoft are being attacked by European politicians for not paying their fair share of taxes. For example, in March 2014 Google was hit by a French tax assessment of perhaps as much as a billion euros according to press reports at the time. In November 2014, U.K. lawmakers accused Google, Amazon, and Starbucks of us-ing convoluted accounting methods to reduce their tax liabilities.

Indeed, the feeling that U.S. multinationals—especially digital giants—are ‘getting away with something’ has fueled a concerted effort by developed countries to re-write the global tax system. This so-called BEPS project (for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting), organized by the OECD, is in the process of issuing a series of guidelines for how countries can revamp their tax codes to best capture “stateless income.”

However, these accusations of tax avoidance are, in reality, not as clear-cut as they seem. Certainly some companies are taking advantage of legal but blatant loopholes that make no economic sense. Eliminating such loopholes is an im-portant part of the BEPS project that we support.

Download “2015.05-Mandel-Weinstein-OByrne_The-Blame-Game-Multinational-Taxation-in-an-Era-of-Knowledge”

The Hill: Student loan borrowers need financial literacy, not more regulation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) field hearing in Wisconsin was designed to address how student loan servicers could better serve millions of struggling borrowers. But instead of mandating that servicers provide more after-the-fact counseling, the CFPB could better help borrowers through reforms aimed at enhancing their financial literacy on the front end.

The CFPB is right to be concerned about growing burden of student debt both on the borrowers and the broader economy. Total outstanding debt, and the share of loans in default, are at historic highs. And although countless studies show that a college degree is still worth the investment, the majority of loan defaults are wracked up by students who don’t complete college. They therefore don’t enjoy the wage premium that comes with a four-year degree.

But in its quest to hold loan servicers accountable for the student debt problem, the CFPB is overlooking the behavior of borrowers. It should also be thinking about ways to enable the students to make better borrowing choices.

Continue reading at The Hill.

RealClearPolicy: A Bipartisan Approach to Energy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The infrastructure debate in Washington usually centers on planes, trains, and automobiles. However, President Obama recently highlighted America’s other great infrastructure challenge — modernizing the way we move kilowatts to power our homes and businesses — by unveiling the first Quadrennial Energy Review (QER). Developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, the QER is a strategic plan for upgrading the nation’s energy systems — the vast network of storage, distribution, and transmission facilities that power the U.S. economy. Based on similar exercises at the Pentagon and the State Department, the QER provides a new roadmap for policymakers struggling to understand America’s fast-changing energy landscape.

The last comprehensive national energy report was published nearly 14 years ago — well before two key developments that have transformed America’s energy landscape: the shale gas and oil boom and the rapid expansion of wind and solar energy. While the QER is not a comprehensive document, it does examine, and calls for measures to improve, America’s energy backbone.

With the QER, Congress has an opportunity to move beyond the distracting and highly partisan Keystone XL pipeline debate and focus instead on urgently needed improvements to America’s aging energy systems.

Continue reading at RealClearPolicy.

PPI Statement on Senate Trade Vote: Don’t Misread Vote as Repudiation of TPA

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It would be a huge mistake to misread today’s Senate trade vote as a repudiation of Trade Promotion Authority and the U.S. trade agenda. The pro-trade Democrats who provided the decisive votes today were not voting against TPA, but were seeking to include other trade measures—including those on trade enforcement and trade with Africa—in the debate. There are various ways to address concerns about these important issues and we hope that trade supporters in the Senate can work together to craft a solution that allows the vital debate on trade to proceed.

As PPI has explained in recent reports on the Obama Administration’s trade agenda and on open digital trade, new U.S. trade agreements have the potential to advance goals that are important to Democrats and progressives. These new initiatives can, for example, tap a growing global middle class to help power American economic growth, expand the reach of strong rules on labor rights and environment protections, update past agreements like NAFTA, and “democratize” trade by empowering entrepreneurs, small businesses and consumers to more directly participate in and benefit from global commerce. TPA would provide a fair and considered process for considering new trade deals, and would obligate future Administrations—both Democrat and Republican—to seek these and other progressive provisions in future trade agreements, as well.

Today’s developments illustrate the leverage that pro-trade Democrats can exercise in trade debates. PPI hopes that more Democrats will engage in constructive efforts to build and support a progressive pro-trade agenda. Simply working to kill TPA legislation, and other reflexive opposition to new trade initiatives, does little to advance important progressive goals.

Creating New Pathways into Middle Class Jobs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Many policy ideas on how to reduce income inequality and improve the upward mobility of low-income Americans are gaining popularity, on both sides of the political aisle. As usual, Republicans suggest that tax cuts heavily tilted towards the rich can address these problems, though many of their proposals would actually worsen inequality and mobility. Populist Democrats’ proposals include minimum wage increases, gender pay equity and the like—which deserve support but would have very modest effects on overall inequality and mobility into the middle class. If we want to have large impacts on these problems, and create systemic rather than mostly symbolic effects, there is only one place to go: postsecondary education or other skills by low-income workers, and whether they get the kinds of jobs that reward these skills in the job market.

Most job training in the United States now occurs in community and for-profit colleges, as well as the lower-tier of four-year colleges. We send many young people to college, even among the disadvantaged, but completion rates are very low and earnings are uneven for graduates. The public colleges that the poor attend lack not only resources but also incentives to respond to the job market. Approaches like sectoral training and career pathways, which combine classroom and work experience, show promise but need to be scaled, while employers need greater incentives to create middle-paying jobs.

This report proposes a three-part strategy for equipping more Americans with new tools for economic mobility and success: 1) A “Race to the Top” program in higher education, where the federal government would help states provide more resources to their community (and perhaps four-year) colleges but also require them to provide incentives and accountability for the colleges based on their student completion rates and earnings of graduates; 2) Expanding high-quality career and technical education along with work-based learning models like apprenticeship; and, 3) Giving employers incentives to create more good jobs.

 

Download “2015.05-Holzer_Creating-New-Pathways-into-Middle-Class-Jobs”

Carew for Republic 3.0: The Case for a Data-Driven FDA

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is fast finding itself at the center of the debate over healthcare regulation in the 21st century. At issue: to embrace the power of data-driven innovation, or to stand by the current regulatory paradigm. Fortunately, two major Congressional initiatives may be the push the FDA needs to see the data-driven economy as an opportunity instead of a risk.

Current rulemaking at the FDA follows a rubric laid out in 20th century legislation: safety and efficacy above all else. Medications and devices must be proven to be at least as good as what’s already available, through long and extensive clinical trials. All publicly available information about medications and devices must be deemed truthful and non-misleading, essentially sticking to only what’s “on-label.” The underlying assumption is that all drug and medical device companies are driven by profits, even if at the expense of public health.

The FDA’s current approach imposes strict requirements on drug and device companies that few other industries are subject to. Even the seemingly simple goal of sharing information is highly complicated under the current system. As PPI has documented, drug and device companies face a severely restricted ability to communicate information to the medical community and to consumers. So onerous are the requirements that many drug and device companies have more incentive to block the flow of information than to create it. Patients are hurt most because medical providers lack access to the best resources to treat them.

Such an outmoded approach to rulemaking will likely dampen future innovation and investment in healthcare. We live in a “sharing economy,” defined by the rise of the Internet, social media, and instant communication. Our unprecedented connectedness has facilitated an explosion of medical apps and real world observational data. Imagine how harnessing and sharing this information could help the 117 million Americans living with a chronic disease, or 20 million Americans with cancer, many of whom rely on unapproved uses of approved drugs for treatment.

Yet such potentially valuable information could not be shared under current rules. The FDA requires any sharing of information on unapproved uses of approved drugs be based on “adequate and well-controlled” clinical investigations, documented in peer-reviewed journals. Instead of embracing the power of data, the FDA seems to be scared of it.

Fortunately, two recent initiatives in Congress are addressing this critical need for rethinking the FDA’s approach to regulation. They are both ongoing efforts, driven by the opportunity to modernize our approach to healthcare rulemaking. Notably, both efforts explicitly address the outmoded approach to communications as a core part of 21st century healthcare regulation reform.

The House initiative, dubbed 21st Century Cures, has spent the last year collecting public comments and conducting analysis on how to use data-driven innovation to redesign healthcare. The most recent white paper notes, “as innovative companies know more about their products than anyone, precluding them from responsibly communicating about new scientific and medical developments does not promote the public health.”

In the Senate, Innovation for Healthier Americans similarly seeks to arm the FDA with tools to modernize healthcare regulation. It argues that restrictions on how drug and device companies can communicate could actually harm public health. The report notes that “in today’s online world[,] where doctors can look on the internet and find studies, it may be a disadvantage not to be able to discuss this information with the product developers who know the most about the project.”

The House and Senate efforts to modernize healthcare regulation give the FDA a rare opportunity to shine. By rethinking its approach to rulemaking in the 21st Century, the agency could define the future of U.S. healthcare design and delivery.

Instead of being viewed as bureaucratic, inefficient, opaque, and over-priced, the U.S. healthcare system could be innovative and dynamic. Customized nano-medicine, treatment delivered remotely, and apps that monitor chronic disease could be the envy of other healthcare systems.

Such a large-scale task may seem daunting for one regulatory agency, but the FDA could start small – say, with communications regulation. By allowing drug and medical device companies to better communicate with the medical community and consumers, a data-driven healthcare ecosystem could sprout and flourish. Each part of the diagnosis and treatment chain could work together, employing cost-saving techniques that improve patient outcomes.

The FDA opportunity should not be taken for granted. With the aid of Congress, it is possible for one agency to set the new gold standard for healthcare regulation, ensuring information is truthful and non-misleading, but also embracing the power of data to improve public well-being.

This is cross-posted from Republic 3.0.