View this email in your browser

New Report from PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project Outlines the Challenges of the Digital Economy and the Need for Policies That Advance the Diffusion of Frontier Technologies


This week, the Innovation Frontier Project (IFP), a new project of the Progressive Policy Institute, released a new report from James Bessen, an economist and Executive Director of the Technology & Policy Research Initiative at Boston University School of Law. 

In the report, Bessen argues that new information technology has delivered more and unprecedented convenience for consumers, and good-paying jobs that contribute to overall economic growth. However, limited access to the technology is also contributing to the major economic and social issues of the day: the growing dominance of large firms and the struggle to increase the flow of knowledge, slow productivity growth, rising economic inequality, and the failure of regulation. The challenge for policymakers is to mitigate these negative effects while preserving as many of the benefits as possible to consumers, to workers, and to the economy. 

Based in Washington, D.C. and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is co-led by Caleb Watney and Alec Stapp. 

READ THE REPORT

Senator Joe Manchin Joins a PPI Event on Reinvesting in America's Infrastructure

This week, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future hosted a webinar on reinvesting in our infrastructure and potential options to pay for the Biden Administration’s American Jobs Plan, with opening remarks provided by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV).

The panel discussion included Ben Ritz of PPI, William G. Gale, Co-Director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax Legal Analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Earlier this spring, Ben Ritz and PPI President Will Marshall wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging Congress to consider a wider array of tax changes to offset the costs of the America Jobs Plan, the Biden Administration’s landmark infrastructure overhaul proposal. The tax reforms proposed in the letter include:

  • Raising the tax on inherited fortunes

  • Reducing tax preferences for capital gains 

  • Instituting a Value-Added Tax (VAT)

  • Putting a price on carbon pollution 

  • Transitioning to mileage-based fees

  • Raising the corporate income tax rate

  • Capping itemized deductions, and 

  • Increasing resources for IRS enforcement

WATCH THE EVENT

President Joe Biden has surprised his critics across the political spectrum with an audacious $6 trillion blueprint for national reconstruction. His resolve to “go big” reflects a palpable public desire for bold action after the enormous losses in lives, jobs and small businesses that America has suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But whether the country at large is eager to welcome “big government” back from political exile—as some progressive politicians and reporters hopefully claim—is far from clear. In fact, surveys show most Americans remain deeply skeptical about Washington’s capabilities.

Fortunately, Biden has other problem-solving tools at his disposal. Specifically, he should look to local governments, which have emerged as American federalism’s star performers. Instead of concentrating more power in Washington, the White House should work to decentralize decisions and resources to creative city and county leaders.

This strategy—call it “metro federalism”—relies on three facts. First, economic innovation and job creation are concentrated in metropolitan regions. Second, citizens have more confidence in their local governments than they do in Washington. Third, the progressive outlook of most metro areas makes them natural allies for the Biden administration.

READ THE FULL PIECE
Share Share
Tweet Tweet
Forward Forward
New Reporting from PPI Senior Health Policy Fellow Dr. Robert Popovian: An Estimate of the Net Benefits from Prior Authorization Policies in the U.S.

While originally a clinical tool, prior authorization policies administered by pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) and insurers of biopharmaceuticals are now primarily designed to manage costs. Prior authorization requirements are associated with reduced drug spending (the financial benefit), but they also impose administrative costs on providers, insurance plans, and employer-sponsored plans. Prior authorizations also worsen patient adherence to their prescribed medicines, which is associated with increases in overall healthcare spending.

This new analysis in the Health Science Journal from PPI Senior Health Policy Fellow Dr. Robert Popovian and Wayne Winegarden develops a model utilizing published estimates to quantify the costs created by prior authorizations compared to the financial benefits as measured by the reduced drug spending. Based on their analysis, healthcare costs associated with prior authorizations exceed the benefits of reduced drug spending increasing total healthcare spending by $1.9 billion per year. While additional research evaluating the net benefit from prior authorization policies is necessary, the analysis indicates that prior authorization policies as an administrative tool cannot be justified based on their net financial impact on the healthcare sector. 
READ THE REPORT
Facebook
Twitter
Website
Medium
LinkedIn
Copyright © 2021 Progressive Policy Institute, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in to programming.

Our mailing address is:
Progressive Policy Institute
1156 15th Street NW
Ste 400
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Add us to your address book


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp