Featured Stories
Rand: Making Health Insurance More Affordable - Q&A With Christine Eibner
SANTA MONICA, California, July 11 -- Rand issued the following Q&A on July 9, 2026, involving senior economist Christine Eibner:
* * *
Making Health Insurance More Affordable: Q&A with Christine Eibner
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the high cost of health care has become a very big problem for the country. RAND senior economist Christine Eibner has spent her career looking for ways to make one key driver of costs--health insurance--more affordable.
Her research has helped distinguish promising approaches to health insurance reform and cost containment from less promising ones. One
... Show Full Article
SANTA MONICA, California, July 11 -- Rand issued the following Q&A on July 9, 2026, involving senior economist Christine Eibner:
* * *
Making Health Insurance More Affordable: Q&A with Christine Eibner
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the high cost of health care has become a very big problem for the country. RAND senior economist Christine Eibner has spent her career looking for ways to make one key driver of costs--health insurance--more affordable.
Her research has helped distinguish promising approaches to health insurance reform and cost containment from less promising ones. Oneof her recent studies helped the federal government avoid billions of dollars in unexpected Medicare expenses. She holds the Paul O'Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at RAND.
Eibner's work provides an evidence-based counterpoint to the partisanship that has often dominated debates over health care. "We at RAND have the ability to really look at the data and try to understand: Did this work? Is it going to work? Why or why not?" she said. "Contributing that empirical edge to policy questions has always been really motivating for me."
Q: The percentage of Americans who lack health insurance has fallen to record lows in recent years. How do you see the trend lines moving in the next year or two?
A: We're starting to see the numbers creep up. Tax credits that were enacted during the pandemic to help people get insurance expired at the end of 2025. More than 2.5 million fewer people enrolled in marketplace plans for 2026, and that decline will likely continue as people start to get their bills and have to pay their premiums.
In addition to that, work requirements for Medicaid are now going into effect. Congress enacted those and other federal funding changes last year as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. We recently estimated that there will be about 7.6 million fewer people enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 due to those changes.
What is that going to mean at the federal and state level?
It will unequivocally reduce federal spending on health care.
For states, the impacts are going to be much more complicated. We estimated that state Medicaid funds will see around $665 billion in total federal spending reductions by 2034. Some of that will be offset because states won't be funding care for people on Medicaid who don't meet the new work requirements. The law also provides $50 billion distributed over a five-year period for states to strengthen rural health systems. But, for many states, that's not going to compensate for the loss of federal funding.
You've looked at a number of ways that states are trying to control health care costs. Do any stand out to you as especially promising?
I can tell you one that's not very promising. We've seen several states try to set benchmark limits for how much health care costs can grow from one year to the next. They can then publicize any payers or providers that fail to stay below those limits. So there's a name-and-shame aspect to it, but some states can also require improvement plans or even penalize payers or providers that don't meet those benchmarks.
We analyzed the impact those benchmarks have had on insurance premiums and hospital prices. We found no evidence of sustained reductions in any of those outcomes. Most states just have limited ability to enforce their benchmarks. And even among those that do, few ever actually used it to confront payers and providers.
So where would you look to start cutting health care costs?
The American health insurance system is really confusing and really complicated. And that complexity creates administrative costs. There are cost-sharing arrangements, network requirements, billing rules, eligibility determinations--just a whole bunch of administrative things that are required. I think there's hope that if we could reduce all of that administrative complexity, we could save money without harming quality.
But a key trade-off there would be choice. The reason we have so much complexity is that we have a lot of different choices. And if you start to rein in that complexity, you might also end up with fewer choices.
You asked a question nearly ten years ago that's worth asking again: Do Americans expect too much from health insurance?
I think so. Traditionally, insurance was meant to protect people from catastrophic financial risk. But we've come to expect that health insurance is also going to pay for things that are minor and predictable, like the everyday care of going to a doctor for a checkup.
Bundling those things together increases costs. And insurers then adopt strategies to contain costs, which can create issues for consumers. They limit the primary care providers you can see to only those in their network, for example. Maybe if primary care was just covered separately, people wouldn't have to deal with a network, and they might have more choice.
But there's a counterargument here, of course. If you don't have the preventative and routine care bundled in, people might forego that care. That would worsen health outcomes in the end. That's the thing about all these ideas for reforming the health care system. There are always going to be trade-offs like that.
* * *
RAND senior economist Christine Eibner.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/07/making-health-insurance-more-affordable-qa-with-christine-eibner.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to New York Post: Top Mamdani Official's Shady Meet With Iran Ambassador Goes Beyond NYC Agenda
NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 10, 2026, by City Journal investigative reporter Adam Lehodey to the New York Post:
* * *
Top Mamdani Official's Shady Meet with Iran Ambassador Goes Beyond NYC Agenda
The top official in Mayor Mamdani's Office for International Affairs made plans to meet with Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations.
Commissioner Ana Maria Archila was scheduled to meet with Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations, at 2 United Nations Plaza, alongside
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 10, 2026, by City Journal investigative reporter Adam Lehodey to the New York Post:
* * *
Top Mamdani Official's Shady Meet with Iran Ambassador Goes Beyond NYC Agenda
The top official in Mayor Mamdani's Office for International Affairs made plans to meet with Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations.
Commissioner Ana Maria Archila was scheduled to meet with Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations, at 2 United Nations Plaza, alongsidetwo other senior officials in the mayor's Office for International Affairs, on Tuesday morning - this according to screenshots of a calendar invitation reviewed by City Journal and confirmed by a source connected to the international affairs community and another familiar with Achila's office.
Another official within the State Department also confirmed awareness of the Mamdani administration's impending engagement.
The meeting between Archila and Iravani was called off after the State Department - which was not informed ahead of time -- met with the Mamdani administration to clarify acceptable conduct, according to the State Department official.
Continue reading the entire piece here at (https://nypost.com/2026/07/10/opinion/top-mamdani-officials-shady-meet-with-iran-ambassador-goes-beyond-nyc-agenda)
* * *
Adam Lehodey is an investigative reporter at City Journal, covering governance, economics, and cultural affairs in New York City.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/top-mamdani-officials-shady-meet-with-iran-ambassador-goes-beyond-nyc-agenda
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Opinion: Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement
NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement
It used to be considered something of a tawdry question, although it could be flattering as well: "What's your number?" Nowadays, your inquisitor is probably asking about retirement -- as in, how much you think you need to retire. And, as it often was before, it's the wrong question.
Is your number $5 million? $1 million? $50,000? No one seems to know how much they'll need, but whatever
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 11 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by senior fellow Allison Schrager to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Stop Chasing a 'Magic Number' for Retirement
It used to be considered something of a tawdry question, although it could be flattering as well: "What's your number?" Nowadays, your inquisitor is probably asking about retirement -- as in, how much you think you need to retire. And, as it often was before, it's the wrong question.
Is your number $5 million? $1 million? $50,000? No one seems to know how much they'll need, but whateverthey think, they're probably not on track to save it. That confusion is unsurprising, because a number cannot reveal if you are on track for retirement.
Of course, it's better to have more money than less. But a "magic number" is meaningless. It is good to have financial goals, and to work toward them, but a wealth goal is counterproductive.
The aim shouldn't be to attain a certain level of wealth by a specific date, but to assure yourself of a steady level of income throughout your retirement. These are fundamentally different objectives, and they require a different investment strategy and mindset from the start.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-07-09/retirement-planning-don-t-focus-on-a-magic-number?srnd=undefined)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/stop-chasing-a-magic-number-for-retirement
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic
MUNICH, Germany, July 11 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 10, 2026:
* * *
Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic
The business climate for the solo self-employed and microenterprises in Germany improved slightly in June but still remains clearly in negative territory. The "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" rose from -27.7 points in May to -25.9 points in June. While the self-employed have less pessimistic expectations regarding the coming months, they assessed their current situation as even worse than in the previous month. "There is still no
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, July 11 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 10, 2026:
* * *
Self-Employed in Germany Less Pessimistic
The business climate for the solo self-employed and microenterprises in Germany improved slightly in June but still remains clearly in negative territory. The "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" rose from -27.7 points in May to -25.9 points in June. While the self-employed have less pessimistic expectations regarding the coming months, they assessed their current situation as even worse than in the previous month. "There is still nosign of a trend reversal," says ifo expert Katrin Demmelhuber. "Although things are heading in the right direction, a real recovery is a long way off."
However, there are differences between the self-employed occupational groups: While self-employed service providers were considerably less frequently negative in the assessment of their current situation, they were more pessimistic about the coming months. Self-employed retailers were less skeptical in their expectations. By contrast, their assessment of current business worsened and reached a low point.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the self-employed to access loans and other financing options from banks. In the second quarter, the share of self-employed encountering difficulties in loan negotiations rose to 44.8%, up from 34.6%. The share also rose in the economy as a whole, from 31.7 to 40.1%.
Demand for loans remained low: Only 9.3% of the solo self-employed and microenterprises spoke to banks about loans. "The results indicate that access to loans has become markedly more difficult, especially for self-employed retailers," adds Demmelhuber. In retail, the share of self-employed encountering difficulties with access to loans rose from 41.0 to 59,1%. Most recently, more retailers requested loans, with the share rising from 13.3 to 14.8%.
The ifo Institute has been publishing the Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for solo self-employed persons and microenterprises (with fewer than nine employees) since August 2021. As in the composite index, all sectors of the economy are taken into account. However, its main focus is the service sector.
* * *
Publication
The results on solo self-employed and microenterprises are published in detailed charts and tables in the ifo Konjunkturperspektiven.
2026 Journal (Complete Issue)
ifo Konjunkturperspektiven 06/2026
Learn more (* * *
)
* * *
More Information
Survey results (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic)
Survey "Jimdo-ifo Business Climate Index for the Self-Employed" (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-10/self-employed-germany-less-pessimistic
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: How Crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' Ranking This Year?
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 11 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
How crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' ranking this year?
It's that time of year again when CNBC pulls out of who-knows-where some ranking which purports to show Minnesota's economy going gangbusters.
The release of CNBC's 'Top States for Business' rankings used to be a red-letter day for Minnesota's media and politicians. Last year, however, celebrations
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 11 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 9, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
How crazy is CNBC's 'Top States for Business' ranking this year?
It's that time of year again when CNBC pulls out of who-knows-where some ranking which purports to show Minnesota's economy going gangbusters.
The release of CNBC's 'Top States for Business' rankings used to be a red-letter day for Minnesota's media and politicians. Last year, however, celebrationswere somewhat muted as CNBC revealed that our state had tumbled four places to 10th. This year, however, we have come roaring back with a stonking 5th place finish.
Should we take any of this seriously? No.
One should be wary of a ranking system which permits rankings to whiplash around as CNBC's do. Wyoming has jumped eleven places in one year, Arkansas thirteen, while Nebraska has fallen by eleven and Colorado by fourteen. Economies don't tend to change so quickly.
What we are capturing here is not so much any change in the fundamentals of these state's economies, or whether they are actually good or bad states for business, but the effects of CNBC's ever changing methodology.
"Our study is not an opinion survey," we are told. "We gather empirical data on the states' performance in each metric using the most recent figures available."
But how can we square this with their 'Quality of Life' measure -- which, incredibly for a 'Top States for Business' ranking carries more weight than 'Cost of Doing Business,' 'Technology & Innovation,' 'Business Friendliness,' or 'Access to Capital' -- in which:
"We look at worker protections, including livable wage policies, paid leave, and rights to organize. We look at inclusiveness in state laws, including protections against discrimination of all kinds, as well as voting rights and secure election systems. And with surveys showing a sizeable percentage of younger workers would not live in a state that bans abortion, we factor reproductive rights in this category as well."
This is just a wish list of "progressive" policies which, we are told, make a state better for business.
The proof of the ranking is in the data. If it is, indeed, accurately identifying which states are best for business, we would expect a ranking of "Top States for Business" to be somewhat correlated with things that businesses actually do.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 'Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages' gives us data on the number of "establishments" (which it defines as "a single physical location where one predominant activity occurs") and employment in each state.
Figure 1 shows that there is no discernible relationship between a state's ranking on CNBC's 2025 'Top States for Business' and its establishment growth between the fourth quarter of 2024 and fourth quarter of 2025.
Figure 1: Relationship between CNBC 'Top States for Business' rankings and establishment growth
Likewise, Figure 2 shows that there is a slightly positive relationship between a state's ranking on CNBC's 2025 'Top States for Business' and its employment growth between the average of the fourth quarter of 2024 and the average of the fourth quarter of 2025, but it isn't statistically significant (the p-value is 0.25), which means that the observed patterns are likely due to random chance or normal sampling variability rather than a true underlying effect.
Figure 2: Relationship between CNBC 'Top States for Business' rankings and employment growth
Whatever it is that CNBC is measuring, it doesn't seem to have very much to do with business.
Debunking the endless parade of silly rankings could be a full-time job and one is often tempted to let them slide. But, bogus as they generally are, they do matter. I have testified at the state capitol and offered hard economic facts such as:
* In every single year since 2014, per capita GDP has grown more slowly in Minnesota than for the United States generally, a record of underperformance matched only by Wisconsin.
* As recently as 2014, GDP was $4,700 per person higher than it was for the United States generally, or $18,800 for a family of four. In 2025, for the first time on record, GDP per capita in Minnesota was below the national average.
* In real terms, median household income in Minnesota has fallen by 6.4% since 2019, a worse performance than in 44 states.
* Real, per capita Personal Income has grown more slowly in Minnesota since 2018 than in 34 other states.
* The average earning Minnesotan handed over 4.9% of their 2025 wages to the state government, a higher share than in 43 out of 50 other states.
* Minnesota is one of just 16 states where the share of the average earner's wages swallowed up by the state government in income tax has increased over the last decade.
* In 2025, Minnesota's state government spent $6,098 per person, an amount higher than in 45 other states.
* Adjusted for inflation, Minnesota's level of state government spending per person increased by 18.5% between 2019 and 2025. This was a greater increase than in 42 other states.
* Between 2020 and 2025, Minnesota suffered a net loss of residents to other parts of the United States which was worse than in 34 other states.
* Since 2019, our state has lost residents in every age category and every income category above $25,000 annually.
None of which sounds very much like a top state for business.
And, on occasion, these have been dismissed on the grounds that we scored really well in the CNBC rankings.
That is why they keep on coming. As I wrote some time ago:
"Data is rarely kind to the American left. The reason these rankings are created and trumpeted so loudly is that they give "progressives" something other than data to point to. Faced with relatively sluggish economies and population loss, they can point to rankings like CNBC's for comfort. Public policy must not be based on such make believe."
Given the relatively muted reception to the 2026 rankings, maybe that message is finally getting through.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-crazy-is-cnbcs-top-states-for-business-ranking-this-year/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CAP Accessible Democracy Tracker Reveals Persistent Barriers to Voting for Disabled Americans Across the United States
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on July 9, 2026:
* * *
New CAP Accessible Democracy Tracker Reveals Persistent Barriers to Voting for Disabled Americans Across the United States
Disabled Americans continue to face significant barriers to exercising their fundamental right to vote, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress analysis and the launch of the organization's first-of-its-kind Accessible Democracy Tracker. Built using original data from surveying disability and civic organizations across the country, this
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on July 9, 2026:
* * *
New CAP Accessible Democracy Tracker Reveals Persistent Barriers to Voting for Disabled Americans Across the United States
Disabled Americans continue to face significant barriers to exercising their fundamental right to vote, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress analysis and the launch of the organization's first-of-its-kind Accessible Democracy Tracker. Built using original data from surveying disability and civic organizations across the country, thisinteractive tool provides the first comprehensive, state-level snapshot of voting accessibility for disabled Americans. It also highlights state-based solutions identified by organizations to make democracy more accessible.
More than 40 million disabled Americans were eligible to vote in 2024, and that number continues to grow. Yet there has been no comprehensive way to compare how accessible elections are across states. The Accessible Democracy Tracker provides the first national benchmark, combining original survey data from 40 states, state accessibility scores, firsthand accounts from disabled voters, and policy recommendations to create a roadmap for improving access to democracy.
"You can't improve what you don't measure," said Mia Ives-Rublee, senior director of the Disability Justice Initiative at CAP and co-author of the analysis. "For the first time, we're able to track and compare state-based data on a variety of democracy access points in order to identify where disabled voters face barriers. We hope to measure where states are making progress and what it will take to make our elections truly accessible for everyone."
Key findings include:
* The national voting accessibility score is just 3.3 out of 5. Disabled voters continue to face significant barriers to voting.
* Voter registration received the lowest score. Registration efforts earned a national score of 2.4 out of 5, making them the greatest barrier identified by surveyed organizations.
* Voting by mail remains a critical accessibility tool. Voting by mail, which is known to be disproportionately used by disabled people due to the barriers to in person voting, received a score of 3.7.
* The highest rated area was Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, with a score of 3.8. However, as disabled people are three times more likely than their nondisabled counterparts to have difficulty casting a ballot, the tracker reveals that current ADA regulations are not enough.
* Organizations have identified practical solutions. Recommendations include expanding accessible voter registration efforts, improving accessible election information, increasing transportation options, modernizing accessible voting equipment, and strengthening disability-led poll worker training.
The Accessible Democracy Tracker will continue to expand as additional disability and civic organizations contribute survey responses, allowing CAP to produce future state-level analyses and track changes in voting accessibility over time.
Explore the tracker: "Mapping Disabled Americans' Access to Democracy" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/accessibledemocracy/) by Casey Doherty and Mia Ives-Rublee
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-new-cap-accessible-democracy-tracker-reveals-persistent-barriers-to-voting-for-disabled-americans-across-the-united-states/
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Times: China's War on American Agriculture Has Already Begun
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by China Policy Director Adam Savit to the Washington Times:
China's war on American agriculture has already begun
In July 2024, a customs officer at Detroit Metropolitan Airport found four baggies filled with reddish plant material hidden in the backpack of Chinese national Zunyong Liu.
The substance was Fusarium graminearum, a crop fungus that attacks grains and produces toxins that sicken humans and livestock.
Prosecutors called it a "potential agroterrorism weapon." Liu
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 9, 2026, by China Policy Director Adam Savit to the Washington Times:
China's war on American agriculture has already begun
In July 2024, a customs officer at Detroit Metropolitan Airport found four baggies filled with reddish plant material hidden in the backpack of Chinese national Zunyong Liu.
The substance was Fusarium graminearum, a crop fungus that attacks grains and produces toxins that sicken humans and livestock.
Prosecutors called it a "potential agroterrorism weapon." Liuworked as a researcher at Zhejiang University, which holds classified government research credentials and which the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party found has conducted cybersecurity research funded by China's Ministry of State Security.
To read the full article, click here (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/8/chinas-war-american-agriculture-already-begun/).
* * *
Adam Savit is from Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and serves as Director for China Policy at AFPI.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/chinas-war-on-american-agriculture-has-already-begun
[Category: ThinkTank]
