Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to New York Post: NYC Finally Faces Homelessness Reality as Jessica Tisch's NYPD 'Q-Teams' Hit the Streets
NEW YORK, May 14 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 12, 2025, to the New York Post:
* * *
NYC Finally Faces Homelessness Reality as Jessica Tisch's NYPD 'Q-Teams' Hit the Streets
By Hannah E. Meyers
David Stern has had it.
The Morningside Heights resident has been barraging 911 recently to dislodge a man who's set up camp under the scaffolding outside Stern's apartment building, frequently exposing himself in front of Stern's young sons.
When cops show up, they can ask the man if he needs assistance -- but can't remove him.
"I'm the taxpayer but
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 14 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 12, 2025, to the New York Post:
* * *
NYC Finally Faces Homelessness Reality as Jessica Tisch's NYPD 'Q-Teams' Hit the Streets
By Hannah E. Meyers
David Stern has had it.
The Morningside Heights resident has been barraging 911 recently to dislodge a man who's set up camp under the scaffolding outside Stern's apartment building, frequently exposing himself in front of Stern's young sons.
When cops show up, they can ask the man if he needs assistance -- but can't remove him.
"I'm the taxpayer butyou're here to check on that guy," Stern fumed to me.
The man has become a neighborhood fixture, other locals told me -- often seen shirtless, enjoying a blunt in the sun, sipping a beer or crab-walking his wheelchair backward and diagonally across busy intersections.
Stern once filmed the guy whizzing on his building and showed it to police -- "on my phone, the stream coming out of him."
No matter: Officers must witness public urination themselves just to issue a violation.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2025/05/12/opinion/nyc-finally-faces-homelessness-reality-via-nypds-q-teams)
* * *
Hannah E. Meyers is a fellow and director of policing and public safety at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/nyc-finally-faces-homelessness-reality-as-jessica-tischs-nypd-q-teams-hit-the-streets
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Moscow Focusing Its Attention on Non-Working Russians to Address Labor Shortage
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 13, 2025, to the Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Moscow Focusing Its Attention on Non-Working Russians to Address Labor Shortage
By Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* Moscow is mulling how to attract or force Russians not officially employed into the workforce in response to a growing labor shortage resulting from demographic decline, the difficulties of attracting and retaining immigrants, and the Kremlin's military expansion.
* The Kremlin presents the effort to employ more Russians as primarily an anti-corruption
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on May 13, 2025, to the Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Moscow Focusing Its Attention on Non-Working Russians to Address Labor Shortage
By Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* Moscow is mulling how to attract or force Russians not officially employed into the workforce in response to a growing labor shortage resulting from demographic decline, the difficulties of attracting and retaining immigrants, and the Kremlin's military expansion.
* The Kremlin presents the effort to employ more Russians as primarily an anti-corruptionmeasure because many "unofficially employed" individuals earn money in the shadow economy.
* Some of the measures being considered, including eliminating gender restrictions on certain jobs and equalizing the gender pay gap, will probably be welcomed, but the push as a whole is likely to be viewed as an unpopular restoration of Soviet-era labor policy.
Russia is experiencing a labor shortage, and it is not only due to unyielding demographic decline (see EDM, April 29). Rising levels of xenophobia mean less ability to attract and retain migrant workers, and Russian President Vladimir Putin's immense expansion of the military to fuel his war against Ukraine has taken men out of the labor pool (see EDM, June 30, 2022, October 24, 2023, November 21, 2024). According to a Higher School of Economics Study published on May 11, this shortage has risen by 17 percent since last year, now at a record level, and will continue to rise (The Moscow Times, May 12). Instead of working to boost the productivity of currently employed workers, the Kremlin is developing a program to attract or force the estimated 15 million working-age Russians who are not employed by officially registered companies into the workforce (RBC, April 28).
Moscow is first and foremost presenting this program as an anti-corruption measure since many of those not officially employed earn money in the "shadow" economy. Any program forcing people into official employment may spark ethnic tensions since unofficial employment is more common in non-Russian areas such as the North Caucasus (Kavkaz.Realii, March 20, 2024; Rosstat Federal State Statistics Service, November 2024). Given the massive scope of the Russian labor shortage, economists suggest that any effective program must be expanded to include typically less employed groups such as students and female homemakers (RBC, May 8). Some of the measures now under consideration by the Russian lawmakers are likely to be popular, including the almost complete elimination of gender restrictions in employment and the reduction or even end of pay differentials between men and women (IQ Media, March 8, 2021).. The push as a whole, however, may be negatively viewed as a restoration of Soviet-era labor mobilization policies, which peaked during World War II (RBC, January 1, 2021; Official Publication of Legal Acts, February 6).
On April 25, the Russian government approved a plan developed by the Russian Labor Ministry to attract some of the 15 million working-age Russians who are not officially employed into the workforce. The plan, which covers the next three years and replaces an earlier one that covered the three years prior, has not been published, indicating its sensitivity. RBC news, however, has a copy of the plan, and sources involved in its development confirmed it is genuine (RBC, April 28). The new policy focuses on combating "illegal employment" but has the larger goal of bringing many of the 15 million "non-working" working-age Russians into the workforce (RBC, April 28).
The Labor Ministry will prepare an analysis of the number, age, and gender of working-age Russians who are not officially employed by July 15. It will work with other government bodies to formulate a program to attract officially unemployed individuals into official employment and send that plan to the Council of Ministers for approval by March 1, 2026 (RBC, April 28). Of the 14.9 million Russians that Rosstat, the Russian government statistics agency, identified as not officially employed, 11.8 million did not express a desire for employment, either because they were students (six million), pensioners (2.1 million), or homemakers (1.6 million) (RBC, May 8). In October 2024, Rosstat reported that 1.8 million Russians are officially unemployed (TASS, November 27, 2024). The official Russian unemployment figure is unlikely to change as a result of the new policy--reporting absurdly low unemployment figures has long been a feature of Moscow propaganda at home and abroad--but the employment policy itself will attempt to get the nearly 13 million other Russians to join the workforce. If the Kremlin can bring these individuals into the workforce, it would compensate for the effects of demographic decline and the departure of most of the migrant workers on the Russian economy, at least in the short term.
According to Aleksandr Safonov, an expert on employment at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, "a significant share" of those counted as not working are actually employed part time, in the shadow sector, independently, or as contractors (RBC, April 28). Many of these people are not counted because of the difficulty of assessing their numbers. A large number, mostly consisting of mothers with children at home, however, are not in either of these categories, but caregivers (RBC, February 8). Pulling them out of the home to work would require enormous sums for childcare and would challenge Putin's commitment to the promotion of so-called "traditional values." Safonov continues that it is therefore unlikely that full-time caregivers could become a significant source of new employees for the officially registered economy anytime soon unless draconian actions were taken, actions certain to provoke outrage (RBC, April 28). He has offered his own proposal for dealing with the issue, suggesting that the government should tax the unemployed (Govorit Nemoskva, May 12).
Elena Varshavskaya, a labor expert at Russia's Higher School of Economics, notes that plans to get women in the workforce focus on women between 30 and 55, whose children are older and require less care (RBC, February 8). The gender pay gap has been widening in Russia since Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Varshavskaya argues that eliminating restrictions on female employment and working to narrow the gender will bring more women between 30 and 55 into the workforce will not be effective at bringing more stay-at-home mothers into the workforce (RBC, January 1, 2021, January 23, February 8; Official Publication of Legal Acts, February 6).
Since RBC's piece revealed that nearly 15 million able-bodied Russians are not officially employed, other Russian media outlets have used the old Soviet term "parasite" to describe unemployed working-age individuals (RBC, April 28; Tvtver.ru, May 9). If the attitude that able-bodied Russians who are not officially employed are "parasites" spreads, there will likely be more calls to force them to work. The intensity of the rhetoric around this issue demonstrates the seriousness of Russia's labor problem. The Kremlin's choice to approach labor shortages by attacking unemployment rather than improving the productivity of those currently employed may become a significant source of conflict between the Russian people and the Putin regime as the dimensions and meaning of the government's plan become more apparent in the run-up to the 2026 Duma campaign.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/program/moscow-focusing-its-attention-on-non-working-russians-to-address-labor-shortage/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Governor Walz's Participation Diploma Delusion
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, May 14 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 13, 2025:
* * *
Governor Walz's PARTICIPATION DIPLOMA Delusion
Written by Grace Keating, Kathryn Hinderaker, Bill Walsh and Isaac Velgersdyk
In the seventy-fifth episode of the American Experiment Podcast, Grace, Kathryn, and Bill dive into Governor Walz's latest round of self-congratulations--this time for handing out what they're calling "participation diplomas." He's bragging about graduation rates
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, May 14 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 13, 2025:
* * *
Governor Walz's PARTICIPATION DIPLOMA Delusion
Written by Grace Keating, Kathryn Hinderaker, Bill Walsh and Isaac Velgersdyk
In the seventy-fifth episode of the American Experiment Podcast, Grace, Kathryn, and Bill dive into Governor Walz's latest round of self-congratulations--this time for handing out what they're calling "participation diplomas." He's bragging about graduation ratesand free meals, while ignoring the fact that half of Minnesota students can't read or do math.
Next, an illegal immigrant arrested and held in Hennepin County is drawing national attention, including from the White House.
Then, the Senate is at it again--this time pushing to raise taxes on Minnesotans to fund health care for illegal immigrants. You read that right.
And finally, Minneapolis wants to hike tourism taxes...to boost tourism. Make it make sense.
We finish with David Zimmer, public safety policy fellow, interviewing Sheriff Scott Rose of Dodge County in honor of National Police Week to talk about his podcast, "The Officer Down Memorial Podcast".
Be sure to LIKE, COMMENT, SHARE with your friends, and SUBSCRIBE to the American Experiment Podcast so you never miss an episode!
* * *
Grace Keating is a Marketing & Communications Specialist at Center of the American Experiment.
Kathryn Hinderaker is the Development Director at Center of the American Experiment.
Bill Walsh is the Director of Marketing and Communications at Center of the American Experiment.
Isaac Velgersdyk is a Digital Media Production Specialist at American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/governor-walzs-participation-diploma-delusion/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for Economic & Policy Research: Report Documents Disparities in Workers' Health Care Coverage
WASHINGTON, May 14 (TNSrep) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release:
* * *
New Report Documents Disparities in Workers' Health Care Coverage
As Congressional Republicans weigh major cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a new research paper (https://cepr.net/publications/how-workers-navigate-the-us-health-care-system/) reveals troubling disparities in how workers obtain health insurance in the United States.
The new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) - A Complicated Maze: How Workers Navigate the US Health Care
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 (TNSrep) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release:
* * *
New Report Documents Disparities in Workers' Health Care Coverage
As Congressional Republicans weigh major cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a new research paper (https://cepr.net/publications/how-workers-navigate-the-us-health-care-system/) reveals troubling disparities in how workers obtain health insurance in the United States.
The new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) - A Complicated Maze: How Workers Navigate the US Health CareSystem - finds major gaps in the availability of employer-based insurance. The complicated public and private system that attempts to fill those gaps, however, falls short of providing universal coverage - and Congress is considering changes that threaten to end coverage for millions of workers.
Employer-based coverage is by far the most important source of health coverage for workers and their families, with over 70 percent of US workers enrolled in employer-based plans. But access to employer-based plans is highly unequal, with the most disadvantaged workers least likely to be covered. Almost 9 of every 10 workers at or near the top of the pay scale (the top 20 percent of earners) have employer-based coverage, but less than half of workers in the bottom 20 percent have coverage through an employer.
The second most important source of health insurance for workers is Medicaid, which currently covers over 16 million US workers.
These differences by pay have a disparate effect on workers of color, younger workers, and immigrant workers:
-Only 53 percent of Hispanic workers and 66 percent of Black workers have employer-based coverage, well below the 77 percent rate for white workers.
-Only 64 percent of workers between 18 and 25 have employer-based coverage, a rate that is ten percentage points below the 74 percent rate for workers 51 to 64.
-Only 68 percent of immigrant workers who are US citizens have employer-based coverage, compared with 74 percent of US-born citizens. Only 45 percent of immigrant workers who are not citizens have employer-based insurance.
The most important stopgap for workers without employer-based insurance is the Medicaid program, which covers one of every ten US workers:
-Among the lowest paid 20 percent of workers, more than one in five (21 percent) depend on Medicaid to fill the insurance gap.
-12 percent of all working women are covered by Medicaid.
-More than one in eight workers (13 percent) in households with children have insurance through Medicaid.
-16 percent of Hispanic workers and 15 percent of Black workers obtain their health insurance through Medicaid.
-14 percent of younger workers (18 to 25) and 11 percent of workers 26 to 50 rely on Medicaid for coverage.
-12 percent of immigrant workers who are citizens and 16 percent of immigrant workers who are not citizens obtain their health coverage through Medicaid.
Congress is currently debating several policies that would greatly reduce the number of workers eligible for Medicaid. One of the most discussed options would end federal subsidies to states that raised the income ceilings for Medicaid eligibility. The CEPR report estimates that 12.8 million workers could lose coverage if these federal subsidies are ended.
A second looming threat to coverage is the scheduled expiration at the end of 2025 of COVID-19-related subsidies to low- and middle-income households who purchase health insurance through the ACA exchanges. The CEPR report estimates that ending these subsidies, which triggered a large increase in ACA enrollment, could lead an additional 1.1 million workers to lose their ACA health insurance.
"Medicaid is, after employer-based health insurance, the second-most important source of health insurance for the US workforce. One of every ten US workers gets their insurance through Medicare, primarily because their employer coverage is too expensive for many low- and middle-wage workers, or because their employers don't make it available at all," said report co-author Emma Curchin, CEPR's Domestic Outreach and Research Assistant.
The new CEPR report is a follow up to a January report, Chronic Condition: Working Without Health Insurance, which found that 10 million full-time workers were uninsured. Similar disparities exist among the uninsured; for instance, almost one of every four Hispanic workers (23.2 percent) lacks any form of health insurance.
Read the full report here (https://cepr.net/publications/how-workers-navigate-the-us-health-care-system/).
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/new-report-documents-disparities-in-workers-health-care-coverage/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Union and the Republican Prize Patrol
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on May 13, 2025:
* * *
The Union and the Republican Prize Patrol
By Michael Watson
Last week, 1199SEIU, one of the most powerful local labor unions in America, held its first contested leadership election since 1989. An opposition candidate, Yvette Armstrong, ousted 17-year incumbent George Gresham amid allegations Gresham used the union's treasury as a personal and political slush fund. He allegedly used it to pay for left-wing activist Jesse Jackson's medical bills, concerts that just so happened to coincide
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on May 13, 2025:
* * *
The Union and the Republican Prize Patrol
By Michael Watson
Last week, 1199SEIU, one of the most powerful local labor unions in America, held its first contested leadership election since 1989. An opposition candidate, Yvette Armstrong, ousted 17-year incumbent George Gresham amid allegations Gresham used the union's treasury as a personal and political slush fund. He allegedly used it to pay for left-wing activist Jesse Jackson's medical bills, concerts that just so happened to coincidewith Gresham's family reunions, and his daughter's room and board, among other questionable expenses.
But as "the union that rules New York" waves goodbye to its self-interested longtime boss, allow me the opportunity to give a brief history lesson, one that should serve as a warning to those Republicans and conservatives who hope to appease unions into political dominance. Because even as he was launching the political careers of leftists like former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), Gresham and his predecessor Dennis Rivera played union whisperer to a now-deceased faction of New York State politics: the Republican "Prize Patrol."
The Dearly Departed Prize Patrol
At the state level, electorates tend to check their state's partisan "id." Texans have checked their Republicanism with a moderate coalition controlling the state House of Representatives. Vermont and Massachusetts Democrats frequently elect moderate Republican governors to check their overwhelmingly liberal-controlled legislatures. Kansas frequently elects Democratic governors to check its conservative legislature.
And until the 2018 elections, with a brief interruption following the Obama mega-wave election, New York checked its Democratic id by placing the balance of power in the state senate under Republican-led control. (I use "Republican-led" because in the 2010s, the Republican-led majority caucuses often relied on dissident Democrats to make up the numbers.) It also had a moderate Republican governor, George Pataki, from 1995 through 2007--as of 2025, his 2002 gubernatorial election is the most recent Republican victory in a statewide race, the longest state-level losing streak for any state GOP.
But the Republicans who led that state senate were not conservative; instead, they were machine-patronage operators. These state senates were happy to deliver bloated budgets and even facilitate Democratic social policies in exchange for deals for their districts or the members themselves. Dean Skelos, the Long Island Republican who led the state senate from 2008 to 2015 with an interruption, would later go to jail for corruption. The questionable ethics of these nonideological Republicans earned them a memorable nickname from the bloggers at the independent Republican-leaning elections blog RRHElections: the "Prize Patrol."
The realignments following President Donald Trump's election in 2016 put the Prize Patrol out to pasture. Since the 2018 elections, New York State has been under "trifecta" Democratic control.
Dennis Rivera, the Prize Patrol, and 1199's Rise
Now back to the labor angle. A key ally of the Prize Patrol, at least as described by Stephen Eide and Daniel DiSalvo in their 2015 history of 1199SEIU titled appropriately "The Union that Rules New York," was believe it or not 1199SEIU. (It is sometimes also called "1199" as it was known by the number alone before it was agglomerated into the Service Employees International Union during Andy Stern's merger-and-acquisition era of union leadership.)
This unusual alliance was not because 1199SEIU was a particularly conservative union. As Eide and DiSalvo wrote, "Deploying its members and financial resources, 1199 has branched out to support other "progressive" causes, including tax increases, gay rights, climate change, and an expansive immigration policy." Left-wing former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) was a former employee of the union.
No, the 1199-Prize Patrol detente came about by a classic Republican trick: unilateral capitulation. While then-1199 head Dennis Rivera "burnished his progressive bona fides, championing tenants' rights, gay marriage, universal health care, and the withdrawal of the U.S. Navy from the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico," he was also courting then-state senate leader Joseph Bruno (R). Per Eide and DiSalvo, Rivera "used campaign funds and a personal touch to woo the Republican leadership, bonding with Joseph Bruno, senate majority leader from 1994 to 2008, over a shared love for horses and Bruno's liberal sympathies on health-care policy."
The Prize Patrol's capitulation to Rivera and 1199 was so complete that they made the New York State Democrats look like the responsible party on Medicaid cost reform. Eide and DiSalvo continue:
Given the Medicaid squeeze on the state budget, [Republican former Gov. George] Pataki's successor, Eliot Spitzer, tried to turn the tables on 1199 after he took office in 2007. Unlike Pataki, Spitzer rejected the concept of Medicaid as a union jobs program. At a breakfast meeting attended by hospital and labor leaders, Spitzer delivered a hard-hitting presentation that branded 1199 and GNYHA [Greater New York Hospital Association] "guardians of the status quo." In response to a proposal by the governor to impose cuts on hospitals and nursing homes, 1199 ran a multimillion-dollar ad campaign that sank Spitzer's approval rating. Union ally Joseph Bruno, in control of the Republican Senate, staked out a position to the left of the governor; in the end, only a quarter of Spitzer's proposed cuts went into effect.
The alliance also broke up before the Prize Patrol was put out to pasture. In 2014, 1199SEIU let its ideological colors fly and broke with the state senate Republicans. The Prize Patrol's control of the state senate would hang on until the 2018 elections. That year, Democrats took "trifecta" control of the whole New York State government, with 1199SEIU's support. FollowtheMoney.org, a project of OpenSecrets, calculated Democratic candidates as receiving $332,500 of the $388,500 that 1199SEIU spent on state senate elections that year.
Learning from the Fall of the Prize Patrol
The fall of the Prize Patrol from New York State government and the more recent fall of Rivera's successor George Gresham from the top of 1199SEIU's greasy pole provides a lesson to the Republicans like Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Lori Chavez-DeRemer who see the path to workers' support through the support of union bosses. Specifically, the union bosses don't command their workers and won't stick around if the Democrats that they have supported for over a century give them a better offer than Republican appeasers. Union bosses' "loyalty" counts for nothing when they are pushing against organized labor's natural left-progressivism.
* * *
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-union-and-the-republican-prize-patrol/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Analysis Finds Broad Support for California Disclosure Law
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 14 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Ceres, a non-profit organization that is mobilizing companies and investors to take stronger action on climate change, water scarcity and global sustainability challenges, posted the following news release:
* * *
Analysis Finds Broad Support for California Disclosure Law
BOSTON, May 14, 2025 - An analysis of public comments on the implementation of California's landmark climate disclosure laws found that 59% of commenters expressed support for the laws, while only 9% expressed outright opposition.
The public comments were submitted to
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 14 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Ceres, a non-profit organization that is mobilizing companies and investors to take stronger action on climate change, water scarcity and global sustainability challenges, posted the following news release:
* * *
Analysis Finds Broad Support for California Disclosure Law
BOSTON, May 14, 2025 - An analysis of public comments on the implementation of California's landmark climate disclosure laws found that 59% of commenters expressed support for the laws, while only 9% expressed outright opposition.
The public comments were submitted tothe California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is responsible for implementing the laws. The two laws enacted in 2023 require companies doing business in California to disclose their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and other climate-related financial risk information.
The sustainability nonprofit Ceres analyzed 245 unique submissions to CARB, including 199 institutional letters. Ceres looked at commenters' perspectives on three key themes that emerged from stakeholder feedback: strong support for global alignment with other disclosure laws, calls for clarity on the definition of companies doing business in California, and clarity on rules that determine which companies report when corporate structures span national boundaries.
1. Strong Support for Global Alignment: Commenters overwhelmingly recommended that CARB prioritize interoperability with existing reporting frameworks, particularly the International Sustainability Standards Board and the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.
2. Clarity on the Definition of "Doing Business in California": Many respondents suggested CARB adopt the interpretation found in California Revenue & Tax Code, with others suggesting that CARB adopt additional thresholds to ensure companies have a meaningful nexus to the state.
3. Clarity on Parent/Subsidiary Relationships and Definition of "Revenue": Stakeholders requested clear rules for determining how companies with subsidiaries are required to report when corporate structures span national boundaries. There was consensus among respondents that consolidated reporting at the parent level should satisfy compliance for subsidiaries.
"Our analysis found broad support for California's climate disclosure laws, with the majority of investors, companies and other stakeholders advocating for implementation that aligns with global disclosure standards," said Steven Rothstein, Managing Director of the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets at Ceres. "CARB now has a tremendous opportunity to meet investor and consumer demand for improving corporate climate risk transparency."
Ceres, which advocated in support of both climate disclosure bills, submitted its own public comment letter in response to CARB's solicitation, summarizing the views of more than 100 climate and financial reporting practitioners representing over 70 companies, trade associations, and institutional investors.
"Once implemented, these landmark corporate transparency laws will help deliver standardized, high-quality disclosures of companies' climate-related financial risks to investors and consumers. These bills were passed, signed into law, and subsequently funded with significant company and investor support at every step of the way, and many companies are well prepared to comply with the laws' provisions," Ceres wrote.
x
About Ceres
Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and sustainable world. United under a shared vision, our powerful networks of investors and companies are proving sustainability is the bottom line--changing markets and sectors from the inside out. For more information, visit ceres.org.
***
Original text here: https://www.ceres.org/resources/news/analysis-finds-broad-support-for-california-disclosure-law
American Action Forum: Most Favored Nation Drug Pricing - Inviting Unnecessary Harm Upon American Patients
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 13, 2025:
* * *
Most Favored Nation Drug Pricing: Inviting Unnecessary Harm Upon American Patients
By Michael Baker
Executive Summary
* The president issued an executive order yesterday to align prescription drug prices in a most favored nation pricing scheme - which would require drug companies to charge U.S. patients the same price they charge in the country with the lowest price for the same drug - aiming to lower the cost of drugs for American patients.
* The order listed several aggressive timelines
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 13, 2025:
* * *
Most Favored Nation Drug Pricing: Inviting Unnecessary Harm Upon American Patients
By Michael Baker
Executive Summary
* The president issued an executive order yesterday to align prescription drug prices in a most favored nation pricing scheme - which would require drug companies to charge U.S. patients the same price they charge in the country with the lowest price for the same drug - aiming to lower the cost of drugs for American patients.
* The order listed several aggressive timelinesto implement its provisions and consists of measures both "voluntary" and punitive, although there are still logistical and legal hurdles the administration will need to address.
* This most favored nation policy would reduce the United States' global advantage in both pharmaceutical innovation and patient access to drugs.
Introduction
Yesterday, the president of the United States issued an executive order (EO) that aims to lower drug prices by requiring drug companies to charge U.S. patients the same prices they charge the country with the lowest price for the same drug. While intended to put America first, the EO will have precisely the opposite effect, reduce the United States' global lead in both pharmaceutical innovation and patient access to novel drugs and therapies. Specifically, the EO says:
* The Commerce secretary and the U.S. Trade Representative shall review domestic and international policy that impacts pharmaceutical pricing in the United States, which per the EO includes "any act, policy, or practice" that "suppress[es] the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries."
* The EO also, "[t]o the extent consistent with law," instructs the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to facilitate "direct-to-consumer purchasing programs" from pharmaceutical companies to patients, with those direct-to-consumer prices being designated the "most-favored-nation price" (MFN).
* In the final substantive section, the EO provides timelines:
- Within 30 days of this EO, the HHS Secretary - along with other members of the administration - must communicate price targets to the industry.
- If progress toward these targets isn't made, then other actions are intended to begin:
= The HHS secretary shall propose rules to impose MFN pricing.
= The HHS secretary, in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner, shall facilitate the expanded implementation of Section 804 drug importation programs.
= The U.S. attorney general and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shall pursue enforcement actions against anti-competitive practices identified under EO 14273.
= The Commerce secretary, among others, will review exports of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor materials.
= The FDA commissioner shall review and potentially modify or revoke approvals for drugs.
= All agency heads shall take "all action available...to address global freeloading and price discrimination against American patients."
The EO Uses the Wrong Metric for Price Comparison
The MFN equation relies on the drug pricing data on member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). But using data from OECD countries provides a poor metric: The OECD is not a wealth-based membership organization like the G-7 or the G-20. These countries are not the most likely culprits of "free riding" on U.S. pharmaceutical innovation.
One reason the United States is more likely to pay higher prices for drugs is simply that it has an immense amount of purchasing power, both on a per capita basis as well as on a national basis. In other words, countries with lower national wealth are less able to pay for drugs and therapies, and so correspondingly they pay less (or ration who is eligible to receive the care they can afford to provide). This EO disregards that and outsources the United States' considerable market power to nations that centrally support their economies or have such low per capita purchasing power that practically any individual state has a higher purchasing power than they do. It is not likely the average American would appreciate access being tied to the relatively meager offerings of the pharmaceutical markets in Chile, Turkey, or Colombia (all OECD members), even with their comparatively lower prices.
An oft-cited refrain in the EO and the supporting materials is that patients in the United States are being taken advantage of, and that nations around the world are free riding on American "generosity" or "subsidies." Nevertheless, what the EO neglects to highlight is that it is better to possess a scientifically rigorous and accessible market than to be dependent on an international interpretation of its largess. The United States accounts for nearly 50 percent of global pharmaceutical revenue, the main source for funding new drug development. The U.S. drug industry invested $102 billion in pharmaceutical R&D in 2021, and over half of global R&D efforts are conducted by U.S. firms, originating the intellectual property on roughly 90 percent of all new medicines globally. Government price controls could reduce private-sector incentives to develop new treatments. A 2019 study by the University of Chicago estimated that drug price controls could reduce global R&D spending by up to $2 trillion, or a 29 percent to 60 percent reduction in R&D from 2021 to 2039, translating into 167 to 342 fewer new drug approvals during that period.
More than half of new drugs were launched first in the United States, and there was an average lag of about one year between the U.S. launch and the launch in other major markets. According to a 2022 IQVIA study, of the new oncology drugs launched between 2016-2020, 96 percent were available in the United States within six months of FDA approval. In Canada, only 56 percent of those same drugs were available within the same period, and only 48-50 percent of new oncology drugs became available within one to two years after European Medicines Agency approval. Across all OECD countries, the United States is the clear leader in launching novel cancer therapies.
The Problems With a Direct-to-consumer System
The HHS secretary is instructed in the EO to facilitate "direct-to-consumer purchasing programs." While there are still open questions regarding the set-up of this program, in general, a direct-to-consumer (DTC) purchasing program does not involve intermediaries and allows customers to buy products directly from the manufacturer. There are several issues that a pharmaceutical DTC program would generate. First, such a program would position the federal government as a vertically integrated pharmacy/pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), much like those the FTC is currently investigating. Specifically, the federal government would assume the responsibilities of a PBM by negotiating - or, really, coercing with the threat of penalties, which are outlined in the EO - with companies to list their drugs on a formulary - a national one at that - and tracking whether those drugs can be dispersed, pursuant to the companies following the new rules, and consistently tracking to make sure they are offering the lowest price. The federal government would also seemingly be responsible for dispensing medications; since the federal authorities are charged with making the sales, they will have to review prescriptions and ensure the drugs that people are attempting to buy are the right ones. Underappreciated in this new process is also that - because it is a DTC system - the order would turn the U.S. pharmaceutical market into a cash system. Insurers will not necessarily directly cover a cash system, and so a DTC program would likely produce an out-of-pocket first, reimbursement second system. American patients would have access to fewer drugs and would be required to approach the federal government hat in hand - with cash - to get the drugs that they are still allowed to purchase.
Finally, there are several mechanisms the administration envisions to enforce these goals. First, the EO mentions that the HHS secretary will use rulemaking to impose an MFN price if the industry does not comply willingly with federal price-setting. There is a litany of additional options the administration is affording itself to leverage both independently and in conjunction with this rulemaking instruction, including: blanket certification that all foreign drugs are safe and that the FDA commissioner will facilitate waivers to allow their importation; legal action by the U.S. attorney general and the FTC chair to target companies' anti-competitive actions; restricting exports through the Commerce secretary; and a review of drug approvals by the FDA commissioner and subsequent threat of license revocation for non-compliant companies.
Conclusion
Taken together, this EO and MFN pricing model will have devastating effects on U.S. pharmaceutical access and innovation. The federal government's expanded role in adjudicating whether a company deserves access to the U.S. market will, in effect, produce a single-payer system that determines appropriate care and outcomes for patients. The new pricing scheme, which doesn't account for U.S. purchasing power, as well as the transition to a DTC cash system, will dry up any return on investment that a pharmaceutical company may have previously counted on. Reduced revenue for pharmaceutical manufacturers will create downward pressure on research and development funding. This will lessen development of and access to new drugs that treat the ever-rising prevalence of chronic conditions, such as cancer and heart disease, or address rare diseases. In the last 20 years, economists have consistently found that price controls reduce the development and launch of new drugs, thus eroding the access that American patients have to innovative and much-needed medicines.
The EO's provisions - while light on specifics - are sweeping and are newsworthy for all the wrong reasons. This EO specifically and directly imports price controls from countries with government-run medical care that health policy leaders of all persuasions have railed against for decades. Senator Bernie Sanders, himself the most avid proponent of such policies, was even name-checked in the press conference announcing this action.
Such policies were dysfunctional when enacted in President Biden's signature Inflation Reduction Act. And it would be no less dysfunctional for President Trump to enforce the same policy for every drug in America. Implementation of any portion of this EO would set the United States more firmly on the path to a single-payer health care system than ever before.
* * *
Michael Baker is the Director of Health Care Policy at the American Action Forum
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/most-favored-nation-drug-pricing-inviting-unnecessary-harm-upon-american-patients/
[Category: Think Tank]
