Public Stock Ownership by Giacomo Corneo :: SSRN

February 23, 2019

The government of a country with a good financial reputation could borrow from the international capital market and use the proceeds to endow a sovereign wealth fund that mainly invests in the world stock market. In expectation, this country would gain the equity risk premium multiplied by the size of the fund. This gain could be earmarked to a social dividend. This paper deals with the conditions under which such a policy is welfare‐improving, discusses the optimal size of such a fund, and proposes an institutional framework for the management of public stock ownership.

Source: Public Stock Ownership by Giacomo Corneo :: SSRN


AEI Event | E-cigarette regulation: Teens and trade-offs Remarks from Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

February 19, 2019

E-cigarettes offer adult smokers who are unable or unwilling to give up nicotine a healthier option than traditional tobacco products. However, new evidence has pointed to a significant and unwanted rise in teenage vaping. Policymakers must decide how to best structure balanced policy that curtails youth access while ensuring adult choice. The future of smokers’ access to safer alternatives depends on such a resolution.At this event, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller will offer remarks on e-cigarette policy, followed by a panel discussion with experts.

Source: E-cigarette regulation: Teens and trade-offs Remarks from Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller


Brookings/USC Event | Emerging policy solutions to surprise medical bills

February 19, 2019

Too often, patients are surprised to find a bill from an out-of-network provider involved in their treatment who they had no control in choosing. Studies suggest that roughly 1 in 5 emergency room visits and 1 in 10 elective inpatient procedures result in the potential for a surprise out-of-network bill, most commonly when patient seek care at an in-network hospital but end up treated by certain emergency department or ancillary physicians (such as anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, or assistant surgeons) who are outside their insurer’s provider network, and financial consequences can be devastating.In recent years, many states have moved to address surprise billing and a few federal proposals are floating around Congress. While there is broad bipartisan agreement that a problem exists, a solution can sometimes prove elusive. On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy will present new analysis detailing policy approaches to eliminate surprise out-of-network billing and bring together policymakers and stakeholders to discuss how to craft a solution.This event will be live webcast.

Source: Register to watch “Emerging policy solutions to surprise medical bills”


AEI Event | Sense and severability: If one part of the Affordable Care Act is ruled unconstitutional, what is the proper remedy or resolution?

February 16, 2019

On December 14, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the current version of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate was unconstitutional. This is a link to two panel discussions on the often-overlooked law of severability and what might happen to the rest of the ACA if that finding holds up on appeal.The first panel discussed the current state of severability, how consistently it is applied, and whether there are possible alternatives that could improve it. The second panel discussed how severability law should be applied properly as this case advances. If an appellate court upholds the district court decision on constitutional issues, it still must decide what to do next. The primary options including striking down only the individual mandate (full severability), severing other functionally linked ACA insurance regulation provisions (partial severability), and finding that the entire ACA cannot be sustained.

Source: Sense and severability: If one part of the Affordable Care Act is ruled unconstitutional, what is the proper remedy or resolution?


The unanswered questions of Medicare for All – AEI

February 16, 2019

The single-payer health insurance proposal known widely as Medicare for All (M4A) cannot be enacted without first answering certain questions. Foremost among these is whether the public would support shifting more than $32 trillion in M4A’s first 10 years from private health spending, over which consumers retain some discretion, to federal health spending, over which consumers do not. A related open question is whether the federal government can adequately finance this amount of spending without triggering significant adverse economic effects. Other unanswered questions include M4A’s effects on health providers, the prescription drug market, and private health insurance. M4A would add further to national health cost growth unless provider reimbursements are cut more sharply than lawmakers have been willing to do historically. Yet the consequences of enacting such payment cuts simultaneously with a substantial increase in health service demand are unpredictable.

Source: The unanswered questions of Medicare for All – AEI