vi Improving the Medicare ACO Program: The Top Eight Policy Issues By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:10:00 -0400 There are now more than 335 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) in 47 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Early results show that most Medicare ACOs are succeeding at meeting their quality benchmarks, but only about a quarter of MSSP participants have been able to reduce their spending enough below projected financial targets to qualify for shared savings. While these results are encouraging, especially given the financial and practice transformation necessary to succeed as an ACO, they also suggest that more work is needed from both CMS and the providers to ensure continued sustainability of the MSSP ACOs. Given that the first three year cycle of MSSP ends in 2015 and more providers will likely be entering the MSSP in the coming years , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has indicated that they intend to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will establish the rule for participation in the Medicare ACO program. In anticipation of these coming changes, the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform released an issue brief that identifies the "Top Eight ACO Challenges" to encourage further discussion and considerations for ensuring the continued success of ACOs. These potential policy alternatives build on discussions with ACO Learning Network members and other related stakeholders implementing accountable care across the country and include the following issues. These issues, and many others, will be a focus of the discussions at the upcoming Fifth National ACO Summit later this week. Top Eight Medicare ACO Challenges 1. Make Technical Adjustments to Benchmarks and Payments In order for ACOs to qualify for shared savings, they must be able to hold spending below a financial benchmark set using historical spending patterns and meet a certain threshold of person and population-level quality metrics. A number of issues should be considered that affect the ACO’s chances of being able to attain shared savings and have more predictability about their performance: benchmark calculation methodology, how to adjust for regional variation in performance, and risk adjustment. 2. Transition to More Person-Based Payments The ultimate goal of an ACO is to improve quality at the patient and population level and control the growth of health care costs. In order to successfully achieve this mission, ACOs must over time make a transition to payments that involve the assumption of more risk by the provider organization with a reward for better health outcomes for groups of patients. ACOs must have a clear transition path for increasing accountability and assumption of more risk for patient health outcomes. 3. Increase Beneficiary Engagement Patients can play a critical role in helping to achieve the goals of an ACO. Health outcomes are determined by whether patients follow prescribed therapies. Increasing beneficiary engagement holds the potential to make patients more activated members of the ACO who can contribute to its success. A number of issues should be considered to improve beneficiary engagement, including adjusting attribution methods, creating more incentives for patients to seek care within the ACO, and finding opportunities to activate patients as part of the care team. 4. Enhance and Improve Alignment of Performance Measures A central tenet of Medicare ACOs is delivering high quality health care as determined by performance on 33 measures established by CMS. ACOs must meet performance benchmarks in order to be eligible for shared savings, ensuring that these organizations are delivering high value, rather than simply cheaper, care. A number of barriers exist to achieving better performance measurement, including administrative burdens, lack of measure alignment among payers, lack of rewards for quality improvement, and concerns about measure selection. 5. Enable Better and More Consistent Supporting Data In order to succeed as an ACO, organizations must be able to effectively collect, interpret, and use clinical and claims data to transform care of their patients. ACOs need to adopt new health IT systems and other technologies in order to collect and use the growing amount of data. ACOs currently struggle with reconciling data between different sources, dealing with patients who opt out of data sharing, lack of timeliness for receiving data, difficulty of tracking patients through the health system, and delays in performance feedback. 6. Link to Additional Value-Based Payment Reforms ACOs are just one of many payment reforms that health care organizations across the country are implementing to improve quality and reduce costs. Aligning the vision and components of these other initiatives with ACO reforms has the potential to reinforce the shared goals and fundamentally change the health system. However, there are barriers to achieving this alignment such as lacks of linkages to bundled payments and other new payment models, multi-payer ACOs with different payment systems, and inability for organizations to participate in multiple CMS payment innovations. 7. Develop Bonus Payments and Other Incentives to Participate In order to effectively transform clinical practice, ACOs must create or procure significant financial and human capital, as well as transform their information technology and delivery infrastructure. A recent survey estimates the average start-up cost for creating an ACO to be $2 million, with some ACOs investing significantly more in their first few years. Many ACOs, especially smaller ones, struggle to find sufficient start-up capital, are uncertain if they can assume the level of risk required for an ACO, and need significant staff and clinical change to effectively transform care. 8. Support Clinical Transformation Becoming and succeeding as an ACO is a vast undertaking that requires immediately beginning to transform practice, finance, and operations. However, many providers, particularly those that are less experienced at systemic practice transformation, need more support in undertaking clinical transformation. Downloads Issue Brief: Improving the Medicare ACO Program Authors Mark B. McClellanRoss WhiteS. Lawrence Kocot Image Source: © Lucy Nicholson / Reuters Full Article
vi Health Policy Issue Brief: Four A's of Expanding Access to Life-Saving Treatments and Regulatory Implications By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:27:00 -0400 Please note that this Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform Health Policy Issue Brief first appeared in the Health Affairs Blog on July 31, 2014. Click here for the Health Affairs Blog version. Abstract Individual patient expanded access is a process by which patients can obtain investigational drugs that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outside of a clinical trial setting from biopharmaceutical companies when no other alternative therapy is available. Currently, no industry-wide structural principles exist to help companies navigate this process while balancing the needs of getting a drug to the market as quickly as possible with providing potentially life-saving treatment to individual patients. The Engelberg Center convened a stakeholder group to identify common themes and identify common principles related to expanded access, as none currently exist. The result was 4 A’s - Anticipation, Accessibility, Accountability, and Analysis – to help assist patients, providers, and companies with expanded access. Process and capacity building recommendations for the FDA also were proposed to assist companies with sustaining expanded access programs. Call to Action: The Importance of Expanded Access Programs Individual patient expanded access, sometimes termed “compassionate use,” refers to situations where access to a drug still in the development process is granted to patients on a case-by-case basis outside of a clinical trial, prior to completion of mandated clinical trials and approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This typically involves filing a single patient or emergency investigational new drug (IND) request with the Food and Drug Administration and voluntary release of the drug by the manufacturer. Generally, the following criteria must be met: there is reasonable expectation of meaningful benefit despite the absence of definitive clinical trial data, the patient has a serious or life-threatening condition, there are no comparable or satisfactory treatment alternatives, and there are no suitable clinical trials for the drug available to the patient. This form of expanded access, which is the focus of this paper, is different from the situation in which a drug is discharged to a large group of needy patients in the interval between successful phase 3 trials and presumed FDA approval, a strategy often termed a “treatment” IND or protocol, which was initially used in the 1980s for releasing zidovudine to patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at the Brookings Institution recently invited senior leaders from several pharmaceutical companies, two bioethicists, a senior FDA representative, and a patient advocate to share experiences and discuss organizational strategies related to expanded access (see acknowledgements). A driving factor for this meeting was a recent flurry of highly public cases of desperate patients seeking access to experimental drugs, which lead to social media campaigns and media coverage. Such cases included 7-year-old Josh Hardy (brincidofovir from Chimerix for disseminated adenovirus infection), 45-year-old Andrea Sloan (BMN673 from BioMarin for ovarian cancer), 41-year-old Nick Auden (pembrolizumab from Merck for melanoma), and 6-year-old Jack Fowler (intrathecal idursulfase from Shire for Hunter Syndrome). Expanded access requests to the FDA for new patients are increasing, from 1,000 patients nationwide in 2010 to more than 1,200 in 2012.[i] (This is likely an underestimate, since it does not include appeals made directly to companies.) In the wake of these events, it became clear that many biopharmaceutical companies had varying experiences and policies related to such access. From the domestic regulatory standpoint, the FDA revised its expanded access regulations in 2009, which define criteria that must be met to authorize expanded access, list requirements for expanded access submissions, describe safeguards that will protect patients, and preserve the ability to develop meaningful data about the use of the drug. Biopharmaceutical companies typically face a complex global environment in which legal and regulatory frameworks can differ substantially. At the meeting, a senior FDA representative indicated the agency has approved over 99 percent of expanded access requests submitted via single patient or emergency INDs since 2009, suggesting the regulatory agency is not a major barrier to expanded access. As such, provided the access request is reasonably related to the potential benefits of the drug, the biopharmaceutical company is almost solely responsible for the decision and liability regarding whether to grant expanded access to an individual. Still, the public belief persists that the FDA is the main bottleneck that restricts access. In April 2014, Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) proposed H.R. 4475, The Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act of 2014, designed to restrict the FDA’s ability to prevent the use of investigational drugs in terminally ill patients. Similarly, some states have passed “Right to Try” legislation to reduce FDA oversight, but contains no requirement that companies must make drugs available.[ii] The goal of our meeting was to identify common themes and possibly broad outlines to suggest industry-wide policies related to expanded access, as none currently exist. The group first discussed background issues related to expanded access and agreed on definitions. The meeting then focused on three topics. First, the group participants who play key roles in evaluating expanded access requests were invited to share narrative experiences in specific clinical cases, in an effort to lay the groundwork for trust and open discussion. Second, the group was asked to identify internal industry-specific structural barriers, such as the existence of clear procedures or tracking mechanisms within companies to handle requests. Finally, the participants reflected on situations in which expanded access may not be appropriate, or where regulatory barriers or liability concerns may hinder expanded access. This paper reflects the authors’ observations and assessment of the internal and external landscape, based upon information provided by the meeting participants. Laying the Groundwork with Shared Experiences The FDA allows companies to provide drugs and charge individual patients that do not meet the enrollment criteria for clinical trials geared towards regulatory approval through expanded access programs.[iii] These programs are meant to provide the drug directly to treat the patient’s condition, rather than having the primary goal of collecting efficacy or detailed safety data in support of approval. Before 1987, the FDA lacked formal recognition of expanded access, although investigational drugs were provided informally.[iv] Since then, the FDA has instituted novel classes of individual INDs so that a company sponsor or licensed physician can legally obtain treatment access from the FDA to provide a drug while it is still in the approval process.[v] Essentially, this provides companies a legal exception from the law to ship unapproved drugs across state lines, and if they desire, to charge for them. These INDs are designed solely for the potential benefit of desperate patients and not intended to formally collect safety or efficacy data that could potentially inform a regulatory decision, but can have regulatory impact, nonetheless. At the outset, several participants objected to the term “compassionate use,” since it introduces inherent value decisions, can emotionally charge discussions, and does not recognize that there may be valid and ethically appropriate reasons for denial. The generally agreed upon term “expanded access,” is used throughout this paper. (One participant suggested the term “early access.”) Ideally, the term would make it obvious that this is access to an unapproved drug, in order to temper expectations of favorable results. Somewhat confusingly, the FDA uses the terms “expanded access,” “access,” and “treatment use” interchangeably to refer to the use of a drug, and of which none clearly identify the stage of development.[vi] Participants shared numerous examples of requests for expanded access and explained that their companies handle anywhere from a handful to several hundred requests per year. The following selected stories illustrate the wide range of experiences and situations that companies encounter when navigating the complex decisions involved in administering an expanded access program. Several other examples were discussed and the specific participants expressed that they would be willing to share these particular examples publicly. Chimerix, a 54-employee company based in Durham, North Carolina, is developing the drug brincidofovir and previously had created an intermediate expanded access protocol for the drug (CMX001-350) as encouraged by the FDA following over 200 emergency INDs granted for access to brincidofovir.[vii] One such case was for an armed services member with previously undiagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia who developed life-threatening vaccinia infection following smallpox vaccination in 2009.[viii] The patient received the drug from Chimerix through an emergency IND. After two years, the company had not secured FDA approval for the drug and eliminated expanded access in February 2012 in order to focus on studies which would inform a regulatory decision. In March 2014, Chimerix originally rejected an emergency IND request for 7-year old, Josh Hardy, who was critically ill from disseminated adenovirus infection after bone marrow transplantation. A highly public social media campaign targeted the company in the wake of this decision, and the experience was traumatizing for many of the employees. Following discussion with the FDA, Chimerix initiated a new clinical trial for the treatment of adenovirus infection in order to collect safety and efficacy data to support an NDA submission. Hardy was the first patient enrolled in the clinical trial, and his family reported through several media outlets that he recovered from the adenovirus infection and was discharged home. One biopharmaceutical company representative described receiving a middle-of-the-night telephone call directly at home, with an emergent, time-sensitive request for an experimental therapy for a critically ill child with a rare acute disease in a foreign pediatric intensive care unit, where regulatory standards were different from those in the U.S. The ideal pediatric dosage was unknown, and only limited safety data and clinical details were available. Urgent efforts were made to gather more information and the request was approved, but despite these efforts the patient did not survive. Bristol-Myers Squibb began a clinical trial for a cancer drug several years ago.[ix] A woman with pancreatic cancer enrolled in the trial and saw that her tumor was no longer growing. After the 3.5 year trial, the study closed because the drug was deemed ineffective for all other patients and was not approved for further development. However, the company continued to provide the drug for the one woman for whom the drug was effective through a single patient IND for an additional 9 years. To demonstrate the volume of expanded access requests, one participant showed several messages on his mobile device during the half-day discussion, directly from patients who had located his email addresses through on-line searches, to plead for expanded access to an anticancer therapy. Development of Structural Principles: The Four A's Broadly, no specific industry-wide consensus on expanded access procedures exists. As a result, there is significant variation in company policies and procedures. During this phase of discussion, participants shared their own company strategies and suggested possible areas of consensus that might form the basis for shared principles and industry-wide practices. These suggestions fell into four categories, which we termed the 4 “A’s”: Anticipation, Accessibility, Accountability, and Analysis (see Figure 1). First, the group agreed that large and small companies should anticipate the need for and creation of expanded access programs when developing drugs expected to generate expanded access requests and as part of the drug development plan. This is particularly important for drugs that might be considered for priority or breakthrough designation during FDA approval. In these cases, companies should strongly consider developing a written expanded use policy with clear guidelines for inclusion and exclusion, which would also feature a defined review process, clear decision making criteria, and a defined time frame for response to requests. This also allows companies to plan for the demands that may be placed on their supply chain and staff resources to ensure sufficient supply for investigational and expanded use purposes. Identifying a decision maker within each company and for each disease area/product will also help patients or physicians reach the appropriate contact when requesting a drug, as well as assist the company in gaining expertise in responding to these requests. For example, one large company identifies one point of contact for all expanded access requests regarding each product and posts that individual’s contact information on the website. In the early stages of drug development, supplies of investigational drugs are extremely limited. This is often because the technically-challenging process of optimizing drug product manufacture takes a considerable amount of time. Low yielding manufacture batches are not uncommon at the early phases of research. Some companies do not approve expanded access requests because they do not have enough of the drug in stock to supply these external requests and meet the needs of investigational study patients and individuals participating in clinical trials, an issue which may be particularly acute for biologics. Smaller companies may have more resource constraints, such as inadequate staff to manage requests or supply chain and logistics issues. One representative suggested that if a company had early transparency from regulators about the final numbers of subjects they would be willing to accept to achieve drug development milestones, it would make it much easier for the company to feel less reservation about its drug supply. (It may be beneficial for companies to analyze their financial ability to provide drugs potentially at no cost or when there is not a large enough supply, ideally in a transparent manner.) Once an expanded access policy is anticipated and developed, the second key principle the group identified was making the policy accessible to all individuals who may qualify. First, for patients, with guidance from their treating physician, the company making the drug should always steer the patient to enter a clinical trial (if they meet eligibility criteria). If the contacted company cannot accommodate the patient, they should steer them to other open trials if possible, even if sponsored by another company. Many of our participants noted that this already occurs. The group was particularly cognizant of the disparity in access to drug companies and their expanded access programs: patients with savvy social media strategies are more likely to succeed in navigating across organizational constraints than without similar sophistication. The group believes that increased accessibility would assist in making opportunities for expanded access more equitable. In addition, these policies could help educate patients and physicians about submitting legitimate expanded access requests and help decrease the costs of reviewing inappropriate requests on the company (for example, if there are other proven therapies or the situation is not life threatening). If the patient is ineligible for a trial, the patient should be able to easily access the written expanded access policy online. For example, both large and small companies like Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Shire, and Merck post their expanded access policies on their websites, though the terminology may in some cases be complex. In addition, Janssen has developed a video explaining their policies in non-technical terms. Ideally, such policies should be available in some web based or public facing platform to both patients and physicians and written in a clear manner that is jargon free and accessible to individuals at various education levels. Most participants felt strongly that requests for expanded access should originate from a medical provider, not from a patient, since expertise is needed to first screen appropriate candidates. This is consistent with current FDA regulations for an IND, in which a physician or qualified medical expert must sponsor an IND or serve as an investigator under an existing IND for expanded access. Third, companies should have accountability to the requesting party for expanded use requests that they receive and review them within a specified, transparent amount of time. If the request could not be approved, the company should consider clear communication and provide an explanation of why the request was turned down. In these cases, some participants suggested that the company might also consider instituting an appeals process by which a patient can receive an additional review if not approved, potentially from a non-binding third party such as an independent, multidisciplinary body or a regulatory agency like the FDA. (Two participants, however, were uncomfortable with any third party review.) Companies can track expanded access requests in order to guarantee that the patient has received follow-up and that the communication loop has been closed. One large pharmaceutical company conducted an internal audit of its expanded access procedures and found that the largest problem was that employees did not know where to find information. Another representative noted that it is important to maintain consistency across patients and the process of requesting a drug. The final principle would encourage companies to release timely analysis of data from expanded access patients. In addition to tracking communication, companies should keep a database of the number of requests and outcomes, in a manner that doesn’t slow getting drugs to needy patients rapidly. One company refined its internal tracking tools to determine who was requesting drugs, for what conditions, and where they lived. Where possible, companies might be encouraged to share anecdotal or preliminary safety or efficacy data from expanded access in peer-reviewed or other refereed venues in a prudent time frame following collections, if this is available or known. This is not always possible, because emergency INDs do not require provision of safety or outcome data to the company. There are several challenges associated with operationalizing this in the current model, namely the appropriateness of anecdotal data, the level of detailed safety and efficacy data currently available through expanded access, suitability for publication, and funding for these activities in the current budget climate. One potential approach to address this is funding from federal or state regulatory agencies or payers for the reasonable costs of follow-up and reporting outcomes. Regulatory Considerations The participants then discussed the types of risks, including regulatory and financial, that may affect companies’ expanded access policies. When a company is considering expanded access requests, they consider the risks-benefits of providing the drug outside of a clinical trial as well as the potential for any regulatory issues in an era of litigation and an increased threshold for demonstration of safety. While a company’s provision of a drug for expanded access is voluntary, the FDA does require the company to collect and report safety data. Notably, none of the representatives felt that the FDA is a major regulatory barrier to processing and approving expanded access requests once the sponsor has reviewed the request, assessed the benefit-risk, and determined the request meets FDA requirements and evidentiary standards. In addition, the attendees felt that adverse effects and related liability risk were not of particular concern given that the drugs are assessed on a risk-benefit analysis. However, companies that make drugs in particularly limited markets with small numbers of patients (for example, for unusual diseases with less than 200,000 patients nationwide which may justify a special designation called “orphan status”) may be more concerned about restrictive labeling if an unusual adverse event occurred even in one or two patients during expanded access of an orphan or small market therapy. However, there is no data of which participants were aware and no public reports that an adverse event during expanded access has harmed regulatory approval.[x] The group opinion was that that safety data would be available eventually in any event and an FDA “safe harbor” provision would not necessarily affect companies’ willingness to accept more requests for expanded access. A final concern was that there is no regulatory mechanism to consider data from expanded access in the evidence generation process for approval. An Expanded Role for the FDA While the FDA may not serve as a strong barrier to expanded access, the group considered strategies to promote equitable and fair access. For example, some argued that the breakthrough or priority review categories for FDA review might identify products that could have high potential for expanded access requests. This designation expedites “the development and review of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions.”[xi] As of mid-April 2014, the FDA had received nearly 180 requests for breakthrough designation, with 44 requests granted.[xii] By hastening the drug development process, the FDA has already begun to bring drugs that have a reasonable expectation of benefit to the market faster. In order to receive breakthrough therapy designation, current legislation might be amended so companies could be asked to provide evidence that the 4 A’s are being followed in some capacity. The FDA might also assist companies in establishing expanded access programs during open clinical trials in two main areas: process and capacity building. First, in terms of process, the FDA could be asked to create a defined path for regulatory approval with provisions that would encourage companies, both large and small, to include plans for expanded access programs when developing a drug. While FDA’s draft guidance related to INDs notes that larger expanded access programs could threaten enrollment in clinical trials,[xiii] and some participants agreed that this was a significant issue, not all companies have had difficulties enrolling patients in both clinical trials and expanded access programs. For example, one large pharmaceutical company left a Phase 1 clinical trial open for a promising therapy while concurrently enrolling individuals who didn’t qualify for open clinical trials into an expanded access program, without appreciable leakage of enrollees in their advanced phase trials that might affect the key development pathway. Second, the FDA could support convening around capacity building and sharing best practices with companies. With the understanding that there are many small biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies with limited budgets and staff, the FDA could foster a partnership of large and small companies. This partnership could be achieved by convening meetings where companies share their experiences in creating and sustaining expanded access programs. This could be supported by creating a database for these shared ideas, as well as any expanded access data that can be made legally available, such as how many requests are granted or patient outcomes. To ensure equitable, consistent, and transparent review of requests, some companies suggested the use of an impartial external advisory board. Similar to an unbiased review from an institutional review board (IRB), this committee could have an advisory or decision making function. Companies with supply constraints may feel that if they cannot give the drug to everyone who requests it, then they should give it to no one. This committee could help the company triage the patients who would benefit the most, and would be protected from liability. Next Steps The most efficient and equitable way to make new effective treatments to the largest number of needy patients is regulatory approval, accelerated or otherwise, following successful demonstration of efficacy and safety for a given indication in a specific population. Until that process is complete, access to an experimental therapy is by definition an additional risk, as the agreed necessary safety and efficacy have not yet been demonstrated. True informed consent in this setting is difficult to obtain (i.e. studies have shown that severely ill patients, such as those with life-threating circumstances requesting expanded access, had less retention of information discussed in the informed-consent process and less-clear understanding of the risks of therapy compared to healthier patients[xiv]). One position companies and regulators can consider is that the default answer to expanded access requests should be affirmative, unless there are compelling reasons for not approving requests to patients with life-threatening illnesses. (Such reasons, for example, might include limited treatment supply or lack of reasonable expectation of benefits versus risks.) Such a position would require, however, that there be broader industry, clinician, regulatory, and patient advocacy agreement of shared principles. This paper outlines the experiences, structural principles, and regulatory considerations of a small group, but further meetings may convene a broader group of stakeholders to build upon these concepts. Such consensus-based approaches might lead to durable systems that meet the needs of desperate patients who have run out of options—while allowing innovation to continue to benefit those who may come afterwards. Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the participation of the following representatives in the roundtable: Jeff Allen (Friends of Cancer Research), Michelle Berrey (Chimerix), Renzo Canetta (Bristol-Myers Squibb), Anne Cropp (Pfizer), Joseph Eid (Merck), Aaron Kesselheim (Harvard Medical School), Howard Mayer (Shire), Jeffrey Murray (FDA), Lilli Petruzzelli (Novartis), Amrit Ray (Janssen), and Robert Truog (Harvard Medical School). We thank Mark McClellan (Brookings Institution) for helpful discussions of this topic and comments on the manuscript, and to the Richard Merkin Foundation for support. The views and opinions expressed in this article were interpreted and organized by the staff of the Brookings Institution. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any individual roundtable representative, their companies, or their employers. References [i] Gaffney, A. Regulatory Explainer: FDA's Expanded Access (Compassionate Use) Program. Regulatory Focus. 2014. Available from: Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. Washington, DC. Accessed May 7, 2014. [ii] U.S. House of Representatives. 113th Congress, 2nd Session. H.R. 4475, Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act of 2014. Washington, Government Printing Office, 2014. [iii] FAQ: ClinicalTrials.gov- What is “Expanded Access”? U.S. National Library of Medicine Web site. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ctexpaccess.html. Published October 24, 2009. Accessed May 19, 2014. [iv]Food and Drug Administration. Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use. Fed Register. 2009;74;40900-40945. Codified at 21 CFR §312 and §316. [v]Investigational New Drug Application. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Published October 18, 2013. Accessed May 19, 2014. [vi] Draft Guidance for Industry: Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use—Qs & As. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Accessed May 19, 2014. [vii] A Multicenter, Open-label study of CMX001 treatment of serious diseases or conditions caused by dsDNA viruses. ClinicalTrials.gov Web site. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01143181 Accessed May 19, 2014. [viii] Lane, JM. Progressive Vaccinia in a Military Smallpox Vaccinee—United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Geo. Accessed May 7, 2014. [ix] Ryan, DP et al. Phase I clinical trial of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor BMS-214662 given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2004: 10; 2222. [x] Usdin, S. Viral Crossroads. BioCentury. March 31, 2014. Accessed June 10, 2014. [xi] Frequently Asked Questions: Breakthrough Therapies. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Accessed May 19, 2014. [xii] Breakthrough Therapies. Friends of Cancer Research Web site. http://www.focr.org/breakthrough-therapies. Accessed May 19, 2014. [xiii]Draft Guidance for Industry: Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use—Qs & As. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Published May 2013. Accessed May 19, 2014. [xiv] Schaeffer MH, Krantz DS, Wichman A, et al. The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med 1996;100:261-268. Downloads The Four A's of Expanded Patient Access Authors Darshak SanghaviMeaghan GeorgeSara Bencic Full Article
vi The State of Accountable Care: Evidence to Date and Next Steps By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:00:00 -0400 Event Information October 20, 20149:00 AM - 12:30 PM EDTFalk AuditoriumBrookings Institution1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20036 Register for the Event Over the past few years, more than 600 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have formed across the country, charged with the dual goals of improving health while also reducing health care costs. Increasingly, evidence on how public and private ACOs are progressing toward these goals is beginning to emerge. Based on these results, major regulatory changes are anticipated in the months ahead that will impact accountable care programs in Medicare, as well as future uptake within the private sector. On October 20, the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform hosted a half day forum to assess the latest evidence on accountable care, discuss strategies to overcome unique ACO challenges, and provide an overview of accountable care reforms. Sean Cavanaugh of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided keynote remarks on the latest Medicare ACO results and potential changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Panel sessions featured leading experts in ACO research, implementation and health care policy. Join the conversation on Twitter using #ACOFuture or follow @BrookingsMed Video The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP): Looking AheadBig Issues for ACOs Going ForwardACO Policy Issues and Solutions on the Horizon Audio The State of Accountable Care: Evidence to Date and Next Steps Transcript Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf) Event Materials ACO Public Event full deck FINAL102014_Accountable Care_Transcript Full Article
vi Yemen’s civilians: Besieged on all sides By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:30:29 +0000 According to the United Nations, Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Approximately 80 percent of the population—24.1 million people—require humanitarian assistance, with half on the brink of starvation. Since March 2015, some 3.65 million have been internally displaced—80 percent of them for over a year. By 2019, it was estimated that fighting had claimed… Full Article
vi COVID-19, Africans’ hardships in China, and the future of Africa-China relations By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:54:45 +0000 In the midst of the global scramble to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, relations have ruptured at a most unexpected front—between China and Africa. Since April 8, reports and social media discussions about the eviction and maltreatment of Africans in the Chinese city of Guangzhou have gone viral, leading to a series of formal and… Full Article
vi Turkey and COVID-19: Don’t forget refugees By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:13:49 +0000 It has been more than a month since the first COVID-19 case was detected in Turkey. Since then, the number of cases has shot up significantly, placing Turkey among the top 10 countries worldwide in terms of cases. Government efforts have kept the number of deaths relatively low, and the health system so far appears… Full Article
vi Suspending immigration would only hurt America’s post-coronavirus recovery By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:24:44 +0000 Full Article
vi Poll shows American views on Muslims and the Middle East are deeply polarized By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:21:00 +0000 A recent public opinion survey conducted by Brookings non-resident senior fellow Shibley Telhami sparked headlines focused on its conclusion that American views of Muslims and Islam have become favorable. However, the survey offered another important finding that is particularly relevant in this political season: evidence that the cleavages between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, respectively, on Muslims, Islam, and the Israeli-Palestinians peace process are much deeper than on most other issues. Full Article Uncategorized
vi A better way to counter violent extremism By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:34:29 +0000 Full Article
vi Minding the gap: A multi-layered approach to tackling violent extremism By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 16:20:33 +0000 Full Article
vi Restoring Prosperity: The State Role in Revitalizing America's Older Industrial Cities By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:00:00 -0400 With over 16 million people and nearly 8.6 million jobs, America's older industrial cities remain a vital-if undervalued-part of the economy, particularly in states where they are heavily concentrated, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. They also have a range of other physical, economic, and cultural assets that, if fully leveraged, can serve as a platform for their renewal. Read the Executive Summary »Across the country, cities today are becoming more attractive to certain segments of society. Meanwhile, economic trends-globalization, the demand for educated workers, the increasing role of universities-are providing cities with an unprecedented chance to capitalize upon their economic advantages and regain their competitive edge. Many cities have exploited these assets to their advantage; the moment is ripe for older industrial cities to follow suit. But to do so, these cities need thoughtful and broad-based approaches to foster prosperity. "Restoring Prosperity" aims to mobilize governors and legislative leaders, as well as local constituencies, behind an asset-oriented agenda for reinvigorating the market in the nation's older industrial cities. The report begins with identifications and descriptions of these cities-and the economic, demographic, and policy "drivers" behind their current condition-then makes a case for why the moment is ripe for advancing urban reform, and offers a five-part agenda and organizing plan to achieve it. Publications & PresentationsConnecticut State ProfileConnecticut State Presentation Michigan State ProfileMichigan State Presentation New Jersey State ProfileNew Jersey State Presentation New York State ProfileNew York State Presentation Ohio State ProfileOhio State PresentationOhio Revitalization SpeechPennsylvania State Profile Downloads Download Authors Jennifer S. Vey Full Article
vi A Restoring Prosperity Case Study: Louisville Kentucky By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:00:00 -0400 Louisville/Jefferson County is the principal city of America’s 42nd largest metropolitan area, a 13-county, bi-state region with a 2006 population estimated at 1.2 million. It is the largest city by far in Kentucky, but it is neither Kentucky’s capital nor its center of political power.The consolidated city, authorized by voter referendum in 2000 and implemented in 2003, is home to 701,500 residents within its 399 square miles, with a population density of 4,124.8 per square mile.² It is either the nation’s 16th or its 26th largest incorporated place, depending on whether the residents of smaller municipalities within its borders, who are eligible to vote in its elections, are counted (as local officials desire and U.S. Census Bureau officials resist). The remainder of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) population is split between four Indiana counties (241,193) and eight Kentucky counties (279,523). Although several of those counties are growing rapidly, the new Louisville metro area remains the MSA's central hub, with 57 percent of the population and almost 70 percent of the job base.Centrally located on the southern banks of the Ohio River, amid an agriculturally productive, mineral rich, and energy producing region, Louisville is commonly described as the northernmost city of the American South. Closer to Toronto than to New Orleans, and even slightly closer to Chicago than to Atlanta, it remains within a day’s drive of two-thirds of the American population living east of the Rocky Mountains. This location has been the dominant influence on Louisville’s history as a regional center of trade, commerce and manufacture. The city, now the all-points international hub of United Parcel Service (UPS), consistently ranks among the nation’s top logistics centers. Its manufacturing sector, though much diminished, still ranks among the strongest in the Southeast. The many cultural assets developed during the city’s reign as a regional economic center rank it highly in various measures of quality of life and “best places.” Despite these strengths, Louisville’s competitiveness and regional prominence declined during much of the last half of the 20th Century, and precipitously so during the economic upheavals of the 1970s and ‘80s. Not only did it lose tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs and many of its historic businesses to deindustrialization and corporate consolidation, it also confronted significant barriers to entry into the growing knowledge-based economy because of its poorly-educated workforce, lack of R&D capacity, and risk-averse business culture. In response, Louisville began a turbulent, two-decade process of civic and economic renewal, during which it succeeded both in restoring growth in its traditional areas of strength, most notably from the large impact of the UPS hub, and in laying groundwork for 21st century competitiveness, most notably by substantially ramping up university-based research and entrepreneurship supports. Doing so required it to overhaul nearly every aspect of its outmoded economic development strategies, civic relationships, and habits of mind, creating a new culture of collaboration. Each of the three major partners in economic development radically transformed themselves and their relationships with one another. The often-paralyzing city-suburban divide of local governance yielded to consolidation. The business community reconstituted itself as a credible champion of broad-based regional progress, and it joined with the public sector to create a new chamber of commerce that is the region’s full-service, public-private economic development agency recognized as among the best in the nation. The Commonwealth of Kentucky embraced sweeping education reforms, including major support for expanded research at the University of Louisville, and a “New Economy” agenda emphasizing the commercialization of research-generated knowledge. Creative public-private partnerships have become the norm, propelling, for instance, the dramatic resurgence of downtown. The initial successes of all these efforts have been encouraging, but not yet sufficient for the transformation to innovation-based prosperity that is the goal. This report details those successes, and the leadership, partnerships, and strategies that helped create them. It begins by describing Louisville’s history and development and the factors that made its economy grow and thrive. It then explains why the city faltered during the latter part of the 20th century and how it has begun to reverse course. In doing so, the study offers important lessons for other cities that are striving to compete in a very new economic era. Download Case Study » (PDF) Downloads Download Authors Edward BennettCarolyn Gatz Full Article
vi How instability and high turnover on the Trump staff hindered the response to COVID-19 By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 18:04:06 +0000 On Jan. 14, 2017, the Obama White House hosted 30 incoming staff members of the Trump team for a role-playing scenario. A readout of the event said, “The exercise provided a high-level perspective on a series of challenges that the next administration may face and introduced the key authorities, policies, capabilities, and structures that are… Full Article
vi Charts of the Week: Housing affordability, COVID-19 effects By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 18:37:39 +0000 In Charts of the Week this week, housing affordability and some new COVID-19 related research. How to lower costs of apartment building to make them more affordable to build In the first piece in a series on how improved design and construction decisions can lower the cost of building multifamily housing, Hannah Hoyt and Jenny… Full Article
vi Putting women and girls’ safety first in Africa’s response to COVID-19 By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 15:12:51 +0000 Women and girls in Africa are among the most vulnerable groups exposed to the negative impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Although preliminary evidence from China, Italy, and New York shows that men are at higher risk of contraction and death from the disease—more than 58 percent of COVID-19 patients were men, and they had an… Full Article
vi The coronavirus has led to more authoritarianism for Turkey By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:00:26 +0000 Turkey is well into its second month since the first coronavirus case was diagnosed on March 10. As of May 5, the number of reported cases has reached almost 130,000, which puts Turkey among the top eight countries grappling with the deadly disease — ahead of even China and Iran. Fortunately, so far, the Turkish death… Full Article
vi Africa in the news: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, COVID-19, and AfCFTA updates By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Sat, 09 May 2020 11:30:14 +0000 Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan political updates Ethiopia-Eritrea relations continue to thaw, as on Sunday, May 3, Eritrean president Isaias Afwerki, Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, and Presidential Advisor Yemane Ghebreab, visited Ethiopia, where they were received by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. During the two-day diplomatic visit, the leaders discussed bilateral cooperation and regional issues affecting both states,… Full Article
vi Meet the COVID-19 frontline heroes: Grocery workers By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:27:57 +0000 Full Article
vi The unemployment impacts of COVID-19: lessons from the Great Recession By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:11:50 +0000 Efforts to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus—particularly the closure of nonessential businesses—are having an unprecedented impact on the U.S. economy. Nearly 17 million people filed initial claims for unemployment insurance over the past three weeks, suggesting that the unemployment rate is already above 15 percent[1] —well above the rate at the height of… Full Article
vi Life after coronavirus: Strengthening labor markets through active policy By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:16:59 +0000 Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, the growing consensus was that the central challenge to achieving inclusive economic prosperity was the creation of good jobs that bring more workers closer to a true “middle-class” lifestyle (Rodrik, 2019). This simple goal will be hard to meet. The lingering effects of the coronavirus crisis will add to the… Full Article
vi The next COVID-19 relief bill must include massive aid to states, especially the hardest-hit areas By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:32:57 +0000 Amid rising layoffs and rampant uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s a good thing that Democrats in the House of Representatives say they plan to move quickly to advance the next big coronavirus relief package. Especially important is the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems determined to build the next package around a generous infusion… Full Article
vi Making sense of the monthly jobs report during the COVID-19 pandemic By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 05 May 2020 18:43:02 +0000 The monthly jobs report—the unemployment rate from one survey and the change in employer payrolls from another survey—is one of the most closely watched economic indicators, particularly at a time of an economic crisis like today. Here’s a look at how these data are collected and how to interpret them during the COVID-19 pandemic. What… Full Article
vi We can’t recover from a coronavirus recession without helping young workers By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 20:34:14 +0000 The recent economic upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is unmatched by anything in recent memory. Social distancing has resulted in massive layoffs and furloughs in retail, hospitality, and entertainment, and millions of the affected workers—restaurant servers, cooks, housekeepers, retail clerks, and many others—were already at the bottom of the wage spectrum. The economic catastrophe of… Full Article
vi Did Media Coverage Enhance or Threaten the Viability of the G-20 Summit? By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:19:00 -0500 Editor’s Note: The National Perspectives on Global Leadership (NPGL) project reports on public perceptions of national leaders’ performance at important international events. This fifth installation of the NPGL Soundings provides insight on the issues facing leaders at the Seoul G-20 Summit and the coverage they received in their respective national media. Read the other commentary »The week before the Seoul G-20 Summit was one in which the main newspapers read in Washington (The New York Times, The Washington Post and Financial Times) all focused their primary attention on the “currency war,” global imbalances, the debate on quantitative easing (QE 2), the struggle over whether there would be numerate current account targets or only words, and the US-China relationship. As early as Wednesday, November 10, The Washington Post front-page headline read: “Fed move at home trails U.S. to Seoul; Backlash from Europe; Obstacles emerge for key goals at G-20 economic summit.” By Thursday, November 11, things had gotten worse. “Deep fractures hit hopes of breakthrough; governments are unlikely to agree on a strategy to tackle economic imbalances” read the Financial Times headline on Alan Beattie’s article from Seoul. Friday, November 12, The New York Times front-page headline declared: “Obama’s Economic View is Rejected on World Stage; China, Britain and Germany Challenge U.S.; Trade Talks with Seoul Fail, Too.” By Saturday, the Financial Times concluded in its lead editorial: “G-20 show how not to run the world.” From these reports, headlines and editorials it is clear that conflicts over policy once again dwarfed the progress on other issues and the geopolitical jockeying over the currency and imbalances issues took centre stage, weakening G-20 summits rather than strengthening them. Obama was painted as losing ground, supposedly reflecting lessening U.S. influence and failing to deliver concrete results. China, Germany and Brazil were seen to beat back the U.S. initiative to quantify targets on external imbalances. Given the effort that Korean leaders had put into achieving positive results and “consolidating” G-20 summits, it was, from this optical vantage point, disappointing, to say the least. How was the Rebalancing Issue Dealt With? At lower levels of visibility and intensity, however, things looked a bit different and more positive. Howard Schneider and Scott Wilson in Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post (November 13) gave a more balanced view of the outcomes. Their headline read: “G-20 nations agree to agree; Pledge to heed common rules; but economic standards have yet to be set.” They discerned progress toward new terrain that went beyond the agreement among G-20 finance ministers in October at Gyeongju, which other writers missed. “By agreeing to set economic standards, the G-20 leaders moved into uncharted waters,” they wrote. “The deal rests on the premise that countries will take steps, possibly against their own short-term interests, if their economic policies are at odds with the wider well-being of the world economy. And leaders are committing to take such steps even before there’s an agreement on what criteria would be used to evaluate their policies.” They continued: “In most general of terms, the statement adopted by the G-20 countries says that if the eventual guidelines identify a problem, this would ‘warrant an assessment of their nature and the root causes’ and should push countries to ‘preventive and corrective actions.’” The Schneider-Wilson rendering went beyond the words of the communiqué to an understanding of what was going on in official channels over time to push this agenda forward in real policy, rather than declarative terms. As the Saturday, November 13, Financial Times’ editorial put it, “below the headline issues, however, the G-20 grouping is not completely impotent,” listing a number of other issues on which progress was made including International Monetary Fund (IMF) reform which the Financial Times thought might actually feed back into a stronger capacity to deal with “managing the global macroeconomy.” The Role of President Barack Obama Without doubt, the easy, simple, big-picture message coming out of Seoul was that Obama and the United States took a drubbing. And this did not help the G-20 either. The seeming inability of the U.S. to lead the other G-20 leaders toward an agreement in Seoul on global imbalances, the criticism of U.S. monetary easing and then, on top of it all, the inability to consummate a US-Korea trade deal, made it seem as if Obama went down swinging. But again, below the surface of the simple, one got a different picture. Obama himself did not seem shaken or isolated at the Seoul summit by the swirl of forces around him. At his press conference, he spoke clearly and convincingly of the complexity of the task of policy coordination and the time it would take to work out the policies and the politics of adjustment. “Naturally there’s an instinct to focus on the disagreements, otherwise these summits might not be very exciting,” he said. “In each of these successive summits we’ve made real progress,” he concluded. Tom Gjeltin, from NPR news, on the Gwen Ifyl Weekly News Roundup commented Saturday evening that the G-20 summits are different and that there is a “new pattern of leadership” emerging that is not quite there yet. Obama seems more aware of that and the time it takes for new leadership and new patterns of mutual adjustment to emerge. He may have taken a short-run hit, but he seems to have the vision it takes to connect this moment to the long-run trajectory. Reflections on the Role of South Korea From a U.S. vantage point, Seoul was one more stop in Asia as the president moved from India to Indonesia to Korea to Japan. It stood out, perhaps, in higher profile more as the locus of the most downbeat moments in the Asia tour, because of the combination of the apparent lack of decisive progress at the G-20 along with the needless circumstance of two presidents failing to find a path forward on something they both wanted. From a Korean vantage point, the summit itself was an event of immense importance for Korea’s emergence on the world stage as an industrial democracy that had engineered a massive social and economic transformation in the last 50 years, culminating in being the first non-G8 country to chair the G-20 summit. No one can fault Korea’s efforts to reach significant results. However, the fact is that the Seoul Summit’s achievements, which even in the rebalancing arena were more significant than they appeared to most (see Schneider and Wilson), but included substantial progress on financial regulatory reform, international institutional reform (specifically on the IMF), on development and on global financial safety nets, were seen to be less than hoped for. This was not the legacy the Koreans were looking for, unfortunately. Conflicts among the major players on what came to be seen as the major issue all but wiped out the serious workmanlike progress in policy channels. The leaders level interactions at G-20 summits has yet to catch up to the highly significant degree of systemic institutionalization of the policy process of the G-20 among ministers of finance, presidents of central banks, G-20 deputies and Sherpas, where the policy work really goes on. On its watch, Korea moved the agenda in the policy track forward in a myriad of significant ways. It will be left to the French and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to see if they can bring the leaders into the positive-sum game arrangements that are going on in the policy channels and raise the game level of leaders to that of G-20 senior officials. Authors Colin I. Bradford Publication: NPGL Soundings, November 2010 Full Article
vi Political decisions and institutional innovations required for systemic transformations envisioned in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 11:04:00 -0400 2015 is a pivotal year. Three major workstreams among all the world’s nations are going forward this year under the auspices of the United Nations to develop goals, financing, and frameworks for the “post-2015 sustainable development agenda.” First, after two years of wide-ranging consultation, the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September will endorse a new set of global goals for 2030 to follow on from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that culminate this year. Second, to support this effort, a financing for development (FFD) conference took place in July in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to identify innovative ways of mobilizing private and public resources for the massive investments necessary to achieve the new goals. And third, in Paris in December the final negotiating session will complete work on a global climate change framework. These three landmark summits will, with luck, provide the broad strategic vision, the specific goals, and the financing modalities for addressing the full range of systemic threats. Most of all, these three summit meetings will mobilize the relevant stakeholders and actors crucial for implementing the post-2015 agenda—governments, international organizations, business, finance, civil society, and parliaments—into a concerted effort to achieve transformational outcomes. Achieving systemic sustainability is a comprehensive, inclusive effort requiring all actors and all countries to be engaged. These three processes represent a potential historic turning point from “business-as-usual” practices and trends and to making the systemic transformations that are required to avoid transgressing planetary boundaries and critical tipping points. Missing from the global discourse so far is a realistic assessment of the political decisions and institutional innovations that would be required to implement the post-2015 sustainable development agenda (P2015). For 2015, it is necessary is to make sure that by the end of year the three workstreams have been welded together as a singular vision for global systemic transformation involving all countries, all domestic actors, and all international institutions. The worst outcome would be that the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 are seen as simply an extension of the 2015 MDGs—as only development goals exclusively involving developing countries. This outcome would abort the broader purposes of the P2015 agenda to achieve systemic sustainability and to involve all nations and reduce it to a development agenda for the developing world that by itself would be insufficient to make the transformations required. Systemic risks of financial instability, insufficient job-creating economic growth, increasing inequality, inadequate access to education, health, water and sanitation, and electricity, “breaking points” in planetary limits, and the stubborn prevalence of poverty along with widespread loss of confidence of people in leaders and institutions now require urgent attention and together signal the need for systemic transformation. As a result, several significant structural changes in institution arrangements and governance are needed as prerequisites for systemic transformation. These entail (i) political decisions by country leaders and parliaments to ensure societal engagement, (ii) institutional innovations in national government processes to coordinate implementation, (iii) strengthening the existing global system of international institutions to include all actors, (iv) the creation of an international monitoring mechanism to oversee systemic sustainability trajectories, and (v) realize the benefits that would accrue to the entire P2015 agenda by the engagement of the systemically important countries through fuller utilization of G20 leaders summits and finance ministers meetings as enhanced global steering mechanisms toward sustainable development. Each of these changes builds on and depends on each other. I. Each nation makes a domestic commitment to a new trajectory toward 2030 For global goal-setting to be implemented, it is essential that each nation go beyond a formal agreement at the international level to then embark on a national process of deliberation, debate, and decision-making that adapts the global goals to the domestic institutional and cultural context and commits the nation to them as a long-term trajectory around which to organize its own systemic transformation efforts. Such a process would be an explicitly political process involving national leaders, parliaments or rule-making bodies, societal leaders, business executives, and experts to increase public awareness and to guide the public conversation toward an intrinsically national decision which prioritizes the global goals in ways which fit domestic concerns and circumstances. This political process would avoid the “one-size-fits-all” approach and internalize and legitimate each national sustainability trajectory. So far, despite widespread consultation on the SDGs, very little attention has been focused on the follow-up to a formal international agreement on them at the U.N. General Assembly in September 2015. The first step in implementation of the SDGs and the P2015 agenda more broadly is to generate a national commitment to them through a process in which relevant domestic actors modify, adapt, and adopt a national trajectory the embodies the hopes, concerns and priorities of the people of each country. Without this step, it is unlikely that national systemic sustainability trajectories will diverge significantly enough from business-as-usual trends to make a difference. More attention needs to now be given to this crucial first step. And explicit mention of the need for it should appear in the UNGA decisions in New York in September. II. A national government institutional innovation for systemic transformation The key feature of systemic risks is that each risk generates spillover effects that go beyond the confines of the risk itself into other domains. This means that to manage any systemic risk requires broad, inter-disciplinary, multi-sectoral approaches. Most governments have ministries or departments that manage specific sectoral programs in agriculture, industry, energy, health, education, environment, and the like when most challenges now are inter-sectoral and hence inter-ministerial. Furthermore, spillover linkages create opportunities in which integrated approaches to problems can capture intrinsic synergies that generate higher-yield outcomes if sectoral strategies are simultaneous and coordinated. The consequence of spillovers and synergies for national governments is that “whole-of-government” coordinating committees are a necessary institutional innovation to manage effective strategies for systemic transformation. South Korea has used inter-ministerial cabinet level committees that include private business and financial executives as a means of addressing significant interconnected issues or problems requiring multi-sectoral approaches. The Korea Presidential Committee on Green Growth, which contained more than 20 ministers and agency heads with at least as many private sector leaders, proved to be an extremely effective means of implementing South Korea’s commitment to green growth. III. A single global system of international institutions The need for a single mechanism for coordinating the global system of international institutions to implement the P2015 agenda of systemic transformation is clear. However, there are a number of other larger reasons why the forging of such a mechanism is crucial now. The Brettons Woods era is over. It was over even before the initiative by China to establish the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in Beijing and the New Development Bank (NDB) in Shanghai. It was over because of the proliferation in recent years of private and official agencies and actors in development cooperation and because of the massive growth in capital flows that not only dwarf official development assistance (concessional foreign aid) but also IMF resources in the global financial system. New donors are not just governments but charities, foundations, NGOs, celebrities, and wealthy individuals. New private sources of financing have mushroomed with new forms of sourcing and new technologies. The dominance of the IMF and the World Bank has declined because of these massive changes in the context. The emergence of China and other emerging market economies requires acknowledgement as a fact of life, not as a marginal change. China in particular deserves to be received into the world community as a constructive participant and have its institutions be part of the global system of international institutions, not apart from it. Indeed, China’s Premier, Li Keqiang, stated at the World Economic Forum in early 2015 that “the world order established after World War II must be maintained, not overturned.” The economic, social and environmental imperatives of this moment are that the world’s people and the P2015 agenda require that all international institutions of consequence be part of a single coordinated effort over the next 15 years to implement the post-2015 agenda for sustainable development. The geopolitical imperatives of this moment also require that China and China’s new institutions be thoroughly involved as full participants and leaders in the post-2015 era. If nothing else, the scale of global investment and effort to build and rebuild infrastructure requires it. It is also the case that the post-2015 era will require major replenishments in the World Bank and existing regional development banks, and significantly stronger coordination among them to address global infrastructure investment needs in which the AIIB and the NDB must now be fully involved. The American public and the U.S. Congress need to fully grasp the crucial importance for the United States, of the IMF quota increase and governance reform. These have been agreed to by most governments but their implementation is stalled in the U.S. Congress. To preserve the IMF’s role in the global financial system and the role of the U.S. in the international community, the IMF quota increase and IMF governance reform must be passed and put into practice. Congressional action becomes all the more necessary as the effort is made to reshape the global system of international institutions to accommodate new powers and new institutions within a single system rather than stumble into a fragmented, fractured, and fractious global order where differences prevail over common interests. The IMF cannot carry out its significant responsibility for global financial stability without more resources. Other countries cannot add to IMF resources proportionately without U.S. participation in the IMF quota increase. Without the US contribution, IMF members will have to fund the IMF outside the regular IMF quota system, which means de-facto going around the United States and reducing dramatically the influence of the U.S. in the leadership of the IMF. This is a self-inflicted wound on the U.S., which will damage U.S. credibility, weaken the IMF, and increase the risk of global financial instability. By blocking the IMF governance reforms in the IMF agreed to by the G-20 in 2010, the U.S. is single-handedly blocking the implementation of the enlargement of voting shares commensurate with increased emerging market economic weights. This failure to act is now widely acknowledged by American thought leaders to be encouraging divergence rather than convergence in the global system of institutions, damaging U.S. interests. IV. Toward a single monitoring mechanism for the global system of international institutions The P2015 agenda requires a big push toward institutionalizing a single mechanism for the coordination of the global system of international institutions. The international coordination arrangement today, is the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation created at the Busan High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011. This arrangement, which recognizes the increasingly complex context and the heightened tensions between emerging donor countries and traditional western donors, created a loose network of country platforms, regional arrangements, building blocks and forums to pluralize the architecture to reflect the increasingly complex set of agents and actors. This was an artfully arranged compromise, responding to the contemporary force field four years ago. Now is a different moment. The issues facing the world are both systemic and urgent; they are not confined to the development of developing countries, and still less to foreign aid. Geopolitical tensions are, if anything, higher now than then. But they also create greater incentives to find areas of cooperation and consensus among major powers who have fundamentally different perspectives on other issues. Maximizing the sweet spots where agreement and common interest can prevail is now of geopolitical importance. Gaining agreement on institutional innovations to guide the global system of international institutions in the P2015 era would be vital for effective outcomes but also importantly ease geopolitical tensions. Measurement matters; monitoring and evaluation is a strategic necessity to implementing any agenda, and still more so, an agenda for systemic transformation. As a result, the monitoring and evaluation system that accompanies the P2015 SDGs will be crucial to guiding the implementation of them. The UN, the OECD, the World Bank, and the IMF all have participated in joint data gathering efforts under the IDGs in the 1990s and the MDGs in the 2000s. Each of these institutions has a crucial role to play, but they need to be brought together now under one umbrella to orchestrate their contributions to a comprehensive global data system and to help the G20 finance ministers coordinate their functional programs. The OECD has established a strong reputation in recent years for standard setting in a variety of dimensions of the global agenda. Given the strong role of the OECD in relation to the G20 and its broad outreach to “Key Partners” among the emerging market economies, the OECD could be expected to take a strong role in global benchmarking and monitoring and evaluation of the P2015 Agenda. The accession of China to the OECD Development Centre, which now has over fifty member countries, and the presence and public speech of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang at the OECD on July 1st, bolsters the outreach of the OECD and its global profile. But national reporting is the centerpiece and the critical dimension of monitoring and evaluation. To guide the national reporting systems and evaluate their results, a new institutional arrangement is needed that is based on national leaders with responsibility for implementation of the sustainable development agendas from each country and is undertaken within the parameters of the global SDGs and the P2015 benchmarks. V. Strengthening global governance and G20 roles G-20 leaders could make a significant contribution to providing the impetus toward advancing systemic sustainability by creating a G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council charged with pulling together the national statistical indicators and implementing benchmarks on the SDGs in G-20 countries. The G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council (G-20 GSDC) would consist of the heads of the presidential committees on sustainable development charged with coordinating P2015 implementation in G-20 countries. Representing systemically important countries, they would also be charged with assessing the degree to which national policies and domestic efforts by G20 countries generate positive or negative spillover effects for the rest of the world. This G-20 GSDC would also contribute to the setting of standards for the global monitoring effort, orchestrated perhaps by the OECD, drawing on national data bases from all countries using the capacities of the international institutions to generate understanding of global progress toward systemic sustainability. The UN is not in a position to coordinate the global system of international institutions in their functional roles in global sustainable development efforts. The G-20 itself could take steps through the meetings of G-20 Finance Ministers to guide the global system of international institutions in the implementation phase of the P2015 agenda to begin in 2016. The G-20 already has a track record in coordinating international institutions in the response to the global financial crisis in 2008 and its aftermath. The G-20 created the Financial Stability Board (FSB), enlarged the resources for the IMF, agreed to reform the IMF’s governance structure, orchestrated relations between the IMF and the FSB, brought the OECD into the mainstream of G-20 responsibilities and has bridged relations with the United Nations by bringing in finance ministers to the financing for development conference in Addis under Turkey’s G-20 leadership. There is a clear need to coordinate the financing efforts of the IMF, with the World Bank and the other regional multilateral development banks (RMDBs), with the AIIB and the BRICS NDB, and with other public and private sector funding sources, and to assess the global institutional effort as whole in relation to the P2015 SDG trajectories. The G-20 Finance Ministers grouping would seem to be uniquely positioned to be an effective and credible means of coordinating these otherwise disparate institutional efforts. The ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum and the Busuan Global Partnership provide open inclusive space for knowledge sharing and consultation but need to be supplemented by smaller bodies capable of making decisions and providing strategic direction. Following the agreements reached in the three U.N. workstreams for 2015, the China G-20 could urge the creation of a formal institutionalized global monitoring and coordinating mechanism at the China G-20 Summit in September 2016. By having the G-20 create a G-20 Global Sustainable Development Council (G-20 GSDC), it could build on the national commitments to SDG trajectories to be made next year by U.N. members countries and on the newly formed national coordinating committees established by governments to implement the P2015 Agenda, giving the G-20 GSDC functional effectiveness, clout and credibility. Whereas there is a clear need to compensate for the sized-biased representation of the G20 with still more intensive G-20 outreach and inclusion, including perhaps eventually considering shifting to a constituency based membership, for now the need in this pivotal year is to use the momentum to make political decisions and institutional innovations which will crystallize the P2015 strategic vision toward systemic sustainability into mechanisms and means of implementation. By moving forward on these recommendations, the G-20 Leaders Summits would be strengthened by involving G-20 leaders in the people-centered P2015 Agenda, going beyond finance to issues closer to peoples’ homes and hearts. Systemically important countries would be seen as leading on systemically important issues. The G-20 Finance Ministers would be seen as playing an appropriate role by serving as the mobilizing and coordinating mechanism for the global system of international institutions for the P2015 Agenda. And the G-20 GSDC would become the effective focal point for assessing systemic sustainability not only within G20 countries but also in terms of their positive and negative spillover effects on systemic sustainability paths of other countries, contributing to standard setting and benchmarking for global monitoring and evaluation. These global governance innovations could re-energize the G20 and provide the international community with the leadership, the coordination and the monitoring capabilities that it needs to implement the P2015 Agenda. Conclusion As the MDGs culminate this year, as the three U.N. workstreams on SDGs, FFD, and UNFCC are completed, the world needs to think ahead to the implementation phase of the P2015 sustainable development agenda. Given the scale and scope of the P2015 agenda, these five governance innovations need to be focused on now so they can be put in place in 2016. These will ensure (i) that national political commitments and engagement by all countries are made by designing, adopting, and implementing their own sustainable development trajectories and action plans; (ii) that national presidential committees are established, composed of key ministers and private sector leaders to coordinate each country’s comprehensive integrated sustainability strategy; (iii) that all governments and international institutions are accepted by and participate in a single global system of international institutions; (iv) that a G-20 monitoring mechanism be created by the China G-20 in September 2016 that is comprised of the super-minister officials heading the national presidential coordinating committees implementing the P2015 agenda domestically in G-20 countries, as a first step; and (v) that the G-20 Summit leaders in Antalya in November 2015 and in China in September 2016 make clear their own commitment to the P2015 agenda and their responsibility for its adaption, adoption and implementation internally in their countries but also for assessing G-20 spillover impacts on the rest of the world, as well as for deploying their G-20 finance ministers to mobilize and coordinate the global system of international institutions toward achieving the P2015 agenda. Without these five structural changes, it will be more likely that most countries and actors will follow current trends rather than ratchet up to the transformational trajectories necessary to achieve systemic sustainability nationally and globally by 2030. References Ye Yu, Xue Lei and Zha Xiaogag, “The Role of Developing Countries in Global Economic Governance---With a Special Analysis on China’s Role”, UNDP, Second High-level Policy Forum on Global Governance: Scoping Papers, (Beijing: UNDP, October 2014). Zhang Haibing, “A Critique of the G-20’s Role in UN’s post-2015 Development Agenda”, in Catrina Schlager and Chen Dongxiao (eds), China and the G-20: The Interplay between an Emerging Power and an Emerging Institution, (Shanghai: Shanghai Institutes for International Studies [SIIS] and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung [FES], 2015) 290-208. Global Review, (Shanghai: SIIS, 2015,) 97-105. Colin I. Bradford, “Global Economic Governance and the Role International Institutions”, UNDP, Second High-level Policy Forum on Global Governance: Scoping Papers, (Beijing: UNDP, October 2014). Colin I. Bradford, “Action implications of focusing now on implementation of the post-2015 agenda.”, (Washington: The Brookings Institution, Global Economy and Development paper, September 2015). Colin I. Bradford, “Systemic Sustainability as the Strategic Imperative for the Future”, (Washington: The Bookings Institution, Global Economy and Development paper; September 2015). Wonhyuk Lim and Richard Carey, “Connecting Up Platforms and Processes for Global Development to 2015 and Beyond: What can the G-20 do to improve coordination and deliver development impact?”, (Paris: OECD Paper, February 2013). Xiaoyun Li and Richard Carey, “The BRICS and the International Development System: Challenge and Convergence”, (Sussex: Institute for Development Studies, Evidence Report No. 58, March 2014). Xu Jiajun and Richard Carey, “China’s Development Finance: Ambition, Impact and Transparency,” (Sussex : Institute for Development Studies, IDS Policy Brief, 2015). Soogil Young, “Domestic Actions for Implementing Integrated Comprehensive Strategies: Lessons from Korea’s Experience with Its Green Growth Strategy”, Washington: Paper for the Brookings conference on “Governance Innovations to Implement the Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, March 30, 2015). Authors Colin I. BradfordHaibing Zhang Full Article
vi (De)stabilizing the ACA’s individual market: A view from the states By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:54:25 +0000 The Affordable Care Act (ACA), through the individual health insurance markets, provided coverage for millions of Americans who could not get health insurance coverage through their employer or public programs. However, recent actions taken by the federal government, including Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate penalty, have led to uncertainty about market conditions for 2019.… Full Article
vi A new vision for health reform By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:00:47 +0000 America spent $3.5 trillion on health care in 2017, totaling 17.9 percent of the country’s GDP. Health spending accounts for more than one-quarter of all federal spending and is expected to double over the next decade. Without policies in place to control the growth of health care spending, there is a risk that a large… Full Article
vi To unite a divided nation, we must tackle both vertical and horizontal inequality By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:00:10 +0000 America was once a country defined by our confident self-perception that we sometimes called “American exceptionalism.” Our “can-do” spirit helped us win two world wars, land on the moon, invent much of the world’s economy, and create a working class that was the envy of the world. Now we wonder whether we are a nation… Full Article
vi Divided We Fall By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:22:11 +0000 Partisan warfare and gridlock in Washington threaten to squander America’s opportunity to show the world that democracy can solve serious economic problems and ensure widely shared prosperity. Instead of working together to meet the challenges ahead—an aging work force, exploding inequality, climate change, rising debt—our elected leaders are sabotaging our economic future by blaming and… Full Article
vi Foresight Africa viewpoint: Housing Africa By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:54:16 +0000 Adequately housing Africa’s growing and urbanizing population is an increasing challenge for policymakers and the private sector: According to a recent study by McKinsey,[1] by 2025 over 35 million housing units will be needed in Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa alone, and over 90 percent of Africa’s young population will live in urban areas. In… Full Article
vi The U.S.-ROK alliance: Projecting U.S. power and preserving stability in Northeast Asia By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:41:20 +0000 The powerful deterrent provided by the U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) security alliance has kept the peace on the Korean Peninsula for over 63 years. Today, with the rising threat of a nuclear-armed, aggressive North Korea, growing friction in U.S.-China relations, and rapidly changing security dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S.-ROK security alliance is more […] Full Article
vi Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Promoting Public Service to America’s Youth By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: In the coming years, the federal government will need to hire more than 200,000 highly skilled workers for a range of critical jobs. In order to fill this hiring gap, young people, who have the right skills and background must be drawn into public service. The government is attracting many outstanding candidates, but the recruitment… Full Article
vi Navigating uncertainty: Qatar’s response to the global gas boom By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 -0400 Over the past year, much attention has been given to the growing production of shale oil and the challenge that these unconventional sources of energy pose to traditional producers in the Gulf. As the world’s leading exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), Qatar faces related concerns – mounting competition from new LNG exporters and more competitive pricing in key Asian gas markets. How will this global gas boom unfold? How can Doha develop a robust response to growing volatility in gas pricing and demand? In a new Brookings Doha Center Analysis Paper, Naser al-Tamimi examines Qatar’s position on the global gas stage and assesses the prospects of new competitors. He argues that new LNG production and exports – from Australia, the United States, and other countries – present a challenge to Qatar’s dominant status in global gas markets, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, diversification and slowing growth in this region’s major economies, such as China, South Korea, and Japan, may reduce LNG demand across the board. Read "Navigating uncertainty: Qatar’s response to the global gas boom" Ultimately, Tamimi argues that Qatar’s pricing mechanisms and export revenues will come under significant pressure as a result of these developments, posing a potential challenge to Qatari finances. He contends that an effective response from Qatari officials must emphasize greater exports to the Middle East/North Africa region, greater contract flexibility to attract new buyers, and cooperation with other GCC members to improve Gulf bargaining power in key regional markets. Downloads English PDFArabic PDF Authors Naser al-Tamimi Publication: Brookings Doha Center Image Source: © Fadi Al-Assaad / Reuters Full Article
vi How has the coronavirus impacted the classroom? On the frontlines with Dr. Jin Chi of Beijing Normal University By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:46:04 +0000 The spread of a new strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) has been on the forefront of everyone’s minds since its appearance in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In the weeks following, individuals worldwide have watched anxiously as the number of those affected has steadily increased by the day, with more than 70,000 infections and more than… Full Article
vi COVID-19 and school closures: What can countries learn from past emergencies? By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:59:56 +0000 As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads around the world, and across every state in the U.S., school systems are shutting their doors. To date, the education community has largely focused on the different strategies to continue schooling, including lively discussions on the role of education technology versus distribution of printed paper packets. But there has been… Full Article
vi COVID-19 is a health crisis. So why is health education missing from schoolwork? By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 16:31:15 +0000 Nearly all the world’s students—a full 90 percent of them—have now been impacted by COVID-19 related school closures. There are 188 countries in the world that have closed schools and universities due to the novel coronavirus pandemic as of early April. Almost all countries have instituted nationwide closures with only a handful, including the United States, implementing… Full Article
vi Top 10 risks and opportunities for education in the face of COVID-19 By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:07:02 +0000 March 2020 will forever be known in the education community as the month when almost all the world’s schools shut their doors. On March 1, six governments instituted nationwide school closures due to the deadly coronavirus pandemic, and by the end of the month, 185 countries had closed, affecting 90 percent of the world’s students.… Full Article
vi Improving All Types of Saving With the UK's Expanded Retirement Savings Platform By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0400 Editor's Note: this article originally appeared in the 2012 Print Version of AARP: The Journal. Using one platform to offer a variety of services Known in the UK under the term “corporate platform” to indicate that it expands options available on the employer’s benefit platform, the development allows employees to use the employer’s retirement savings mechanism to save and invest for additional nonretirement purposes. When the corporate platform is fully implemented, employees will be able to manage almost all of their investments and savings plans from one location, thus giving them a consolidated view of their entire financial status. If carried to its full potential, the expanded saving platform will allow employees to shop for savings products, among options that are available on the platform, instead of having to seek them out from individual suppliers—a search that often takes up work hours. Of even greater value, it gives employees one source to go to for individualized advice or financial literacy training. The enhancement has special significance in the UK, where by fall 2012, the larger employers that don’t offer any other type of pension or retirement savings plan, must begin to automatically enroll their employees into basic retirement savings accounts. This requirement is causing a great deal of discussion about the future role of employer-provided benefits, as well as reconsideration of the fees and services included in a traditional package. The platform enhancements allow an employer to differentiate its employee benefit package from the required basic account structure. It also gives younger employees a benefit of more immediate value, than they would have from a retirement savings account that they won’t access for a good 40 years. Presentations from a variety of service providers at an October 2011 summit hosted by Pensions Insight, a UK trade journal, showed that the platform can be easily customized to meet the special needs of a specific workforce. Using a single computer interface, employees can select from a wide variety of savings and investment options that are appropriate for their income level and stage of life. Thus, an upper income manager who manages his or her own finances could see more sophisticated products, while an entry-level worker sees more basic savings products. Live presentations by financial professionals who explain what is available on the computer platform add to the system’s value and increase its use. A place to provide choice and to build financial literacy The platform will have special value for moderate- and lower-income employees. While higher salaried employees may appreciate the opportunity to build their investments, the real value of the platform will be to enable moderate- and lower-income workers to find savings opportunities that they might otherwise miss because they don’t know where to go, are uncertain about what is a fair price, or for a variety of other reasons. Because employees tend to believe that services included on the corporate platform are implicitly endorsed by the employer, they usually have greater faith that the services are from legitimate providers at a fair price. Employees at all levels can also use the site to receive guidance on individual products or basic financial literacy training. Individuals can choose from a range of options, from short videos on a specific topic by experts or fellow employees, to longer connected courses designed to meet the needs of specific age or income groups. Use is increased when employees receive emails or text messages geared to birthdays or other life events, or generated after the employee visits a specific part of the website. Understanding the value of peer evaluations to motivate others, some providers include a place where employees can post feedback about specific products or savings choices. These postings help to guide other employees’ decisions and build the reputation of the platform as a source of unbiased information. The site can also include links to outside advisors who can answer specific questions, guide employees to another site for more information, or perform other services either online or over the telephone. Differing age groups can be contacted and guided through different technologies. At the UK platform summit, David Harris, of Tor Financial Consulting, showed that younger employees preferred different communication methods than either older workers or the usual way employers provide information. However, the platform is able to use a wide variety of methods and is equally effective no matter which is used. The platform’s value to international policy makers Although the UK’s platform is intended as an enhancement to employer-provided benefits, it can also be used for a wide variety of policy goals, as the basic structure can be easily adapted to meet almost any nation’s specific tax and savings system. In the United States alone, policy experts have proposed dedicated savings accounts for nonretirement purposes ranging from unemployment benefits and retraining, home purchases, health care, and long-term health care coverage, to repaying student loans or building college balances for children or grandchildren. However, if all of these various accounts were established and funded, it is doubtful the employee would have any money left for food, clothing, and shelter. Rather than having a host of specific savings programs, employees may be better served by more flexible accounts usable for a variety of purposes, as outside developments or changing needs dictate. The platform concept would allow individuals to choose which purposes they need to save for and how much to save for each. Combined with targeted guidance or education, this structure could expose individuals to possibilities they might not have considered before. The structure is ideally suited to employment situations, but it could also be used by the self-employed or by consultants at sites aimed specifically at them and sponsored by trade associations, unions, or even government agencies. While their circumstances may preclude payroll deductions, the same products could be offered through direct debits to bank accounts. The added value of nudge The flexibility of the platform allows it to be used by employees with all levels of financial sophistication, but new participants would benefit from a variation on automatic enrollment that places certain amounts, in addition to the retirement savings amount, into a general savings account or similar vehicle. The automatic savings amounts deducted need not be large, and where the law allows, could vary according to employee age, with a larger proportion of the overall deduction going to nonretirement purpose for younger employees and to retirement for older ones. As with automatic retirement enrollment, the employee would have the ability to vary amounts, divide the total among various accounts, and even stop all future contributions. However, automatic enrollment would offer workers direct experience with the nonretirement side of the platform. By varying enrollment in various accounts according to employees’ age, automatic enrollment could encourage them to consider saving for various purposes, such as a first home, college tuition for children, or additional health services. Improving retirement security Although the platform is applicable to a wide variety of other uses, its primary purpose is to build retirement security. Before retirement, the platform helps employees understand how to save, what they have, and how much more they need for a comfortable lifestyle. The other savings provide funds that can be used in the event of an emergency, thus helping to reduce leakage from retirement accounts in countries that allow early access to that money. At retirement, the platform helps individuals to see what other assets are available, and what loans or other liabilities must be factored in. In the UK, it is also being used to encourage individuals to use annuities and add them to their investments. The UK experience can help to guide US policymakers in their efforts to increase the use of similar products. The enhanced information and flexibility of the corporate platform should help individuals to better understand their finances and how to meet their goals. It moves retirement savings plans from a minor part of employees’ financial lives, to a central feature that has many more uses than just an event many years in the future. This promotes regular use of the platform, and a fuller understanding of what is necessary for a comfortable retirement. Authors David C. John Publication: AARP: The Journal Full Article
vi New Ways to Promote Retirement Saving By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400 Many American households do not save for retirement. Those that do save often contribute too little, invest poorly, or withdraw funds early. These patterns leave households, particularly low- and middle-income households, vulnerable to insufficient savings to finance adequate living standards during old age and retirement. This research report proposes retirement saving reforms designed to help boost saving among low- and middle-income households. These 11 proposals are grouped under five themes: (1) making saving easier, (2) making saving more rewarding, (3) strengthening the market infrastructure for saving, (4) providing private information to savers, and (5) improving public education for saving. Download the full report at aarp.org » Authors William G. GaleDavid C. JohnSpencer Smith Publication: AARP Full Article
vi Retirement Savings in Australia, Asia and Beyond: What are the Lessons for the United States? By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:30:00 -0400 Event Information September 17, 20131:30 PM - 4:00 PM EDTSaul and Zilkha RoomsThe Brookings Institution1775 Massachusetts Ave., NWWashington, DC Register for the EventAustralia's mandatory Superannuation Guarantee requires its citizens to save at least 9 percent of their income towards retirement. In many Asian nations, economic growth has spurred reexamination of pension systems to meet the needs of rapidly evolving societies. Would a mandatory savings plan be more effective than the current U.S. voluntary system? How have Asian nations have restructured their pension systems to deal with legacy costs? And what can Americans learn from the way Australia uses both employer and employee representatives to shape investment choices? On September 17, the Retirement Security Project at Brookings and the AARP Public Policy Institute hosted a discussion of what the United States might learn from retirement savings systems in Australia and Asia. Opening speakers included Nick Sherry, who helped shape the Australian system as a cabinet minister and ran a Superannuation fund in the private sector, and Josef Pilger, an advisor on pension reform to both the Malaysian and Hong Kong governments and many industry providers. Steve Utkus, David Harris and Benjamin Harris, retirement experts from both the United States and the United Kingdom, considered how reforms in Australia and Asia can shape the American debate and whether this country should adopt key features from those foreign systems. Audio Retirement Savings in Australia, Asia and Beyond: What are the Lessons for the United States? Transcript Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf) Event Materials 20130917_retirement_savings_transcript Full Article
vi State of the Union Speech Promotes New Retirement Savings Vehicles By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:05:00 -0500 In this year’s State of the Union Address, President Obama announced a new retirement savings account for workers whose employers do not offer any form of pension or savings plan. He also promoted the Automatic IRA, a retirement savings plan that originated at the Retirement Security Project and has been in the Administration’s budget for several years. Only about half of workers has access to a retirement savings plan at work. Millions of Americans lack the ability to save at work via payroll deductions. And while these individuals could in theory save on their own in an IRA, the best estimate is that only about one in twenty eligible to contribute to an IRA actually do so on a regular basis. To help solve this problem, the President announced the creation of My Retirement Account, or “MyRA.” Similar to the R-Bond discussed in a recent AARP Public Policy Institute paper written by William Gale, David John and Spencer Smith, MyRA would allow individuals to save in a government bond account similar to the one offered as an option to federal employees through the Thrift Savings Plan. The details are unclear (there’s a WhiteHouse fact sheet here), but MyRA would allow new savers and those with small balances to accumulate retirement savings without either having to pay administrative charges or face market risk. Employers would not administer the plan or have any fiduciary responsibilities related to the accounts. Importantly, too, contributions come from employees, not employers. The plan is meant to build off of existing institutions—payroll deduction, Roth IRAs, the G-fund in federal employees’ thrift saving accounts. And it is meant to supplement, not substitute for, 401(k) and other company-based retirement plans. It accomplishes the latter by only allowing contributions up to the IRA limit, by limiting investment choice, and by having people with more than a set balance move into a regular account. This approach is a boon to those who can only afford small contributions to retirement accounts. Private sector funds often require minimum contributions that are out of reach of low-income savers or assess high fees to offset their costs. The key questions are whether employers will participate and whether automatic enrollment (that is, a regular contribution on behalf of all employees who do not opt out) would be allowed for MyRA accounts. Research suggests that automatic enrollment would greatly boost the number of employees who participate. President Obama also promoted the Automatic IRA, but that would require congressional action, something that has not happened so far. Because the Automatic IRA would require employers with more than 10 employees to offer retirement accounts, it would likely dramatically increase the number of workers who save for retirement. It would also give employees a greater choice of investment options and serve as a permanent retirement savings plan, rather than a starter account like MyRA. With Tuesday night’s mention of both proposals, the president made retirement security a priority. Both proposals would allow workers to build economic security through their own efforts and promote the kind of values and self-reliance that both sides of the political spectrum find attractive. Authors William G. GaleBenjamin H. HarrisDavid C. John Full Article
vi Testimony before the Oregon Retirement Savings Task Force By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 14 May 2014 00:00:00 -0400 Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on the need to improve retirement savings opportunities for employees of private sector small businesses and ways to structure such an effort. I am David John, a Senior Strategic Policy Advisor in AARP’s Public Policy Institute, AARP’s internal think tank. In addition, I am a Deputy Director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution. Before I joined AARP last year, I was a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation for almost 15 years. My testimony this afternoon will focus on three areas: first, that there is a very real and growing retirement security problem in the United States; second, that the existing products and efforts are not resolving this problem; and third, that there are some approaches that Oregon could take that are compatible with existing law and would help future retirees to have a more comfortable retirement. These proposed actions would also help both your state and the country as a whole avoid the high costs of doing nothing. Let me be clear from the start that simply talking about increased education is not enough. This is a problem that will require action to improve. The Problem Facing Us Oregon and our nation face a serious problem if a large proportion of our workforce remains unable to save for retirement through an employer-related payroll deduction plan. This situation affects both those approaching retirement and those who are just starting their careers. However, older workers may have much higher access to defined benefit plans, and thus be much better off than younger employees who will have nothing to rely upon other than savings and Social Security. Social Security is the foundation of retirement security both here and nationwide. In Oregon alone, its benefits keep hundreds of thousands out of poverty, but for most people, Social Security’s average benefit level of about $1,300 a month[1] does not provide enough for a comfortable retirement. That is about $15,600 a year. Economic security requires both Social Security benefits and sufficient additional savings to supplement them. The lack of savings—and the opportunity to save at work through payroll deduction—is where the problem lies. Various industry groups and columnists have claimed that all is well, and that there really is not a problem. However, on close examination, there are holes in their figures, and they often focus on today’s retirees and those close to retirement, people who are much more likely to have a traditional defined benefit pension plan than younger workers who need to be saving now will have. Even then, the numbers are not pretty. National data from the non-partisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that in 2013, 51 percent of workers aged 45–54 had less than $25,000 in total savings and investments.[2] These are people between 10 and 20 years from retirement. Among workers aged 55 and above, those within 10 years of retirement, 43 percent had less than $25,000 in total savings and investments. These household savings numbers exclude home equity and defined benefit pensions (if any). Savings of that amount will not take an individual through one year of retirement, much less the 20 plus years that most healthy 65-year-olds are likely to experience. Interestingly, the question in 2014 was revised to separate out those with access to an employer-sponsored retirement savings plan or pension and those without.[3] The answers showed once again the value of such a plan and the cost of not having one. About 62 percent of employees with access to a retirement saving plan through their employer had more than $25,000 saved, and 22 percent had $100,000 or more. However, 94 percent of those without access to such a plan had under $25,000 in total savings and investments, and only 3 percent had $100,000 or more. Just to place these numbers in perspective, any amount of retirement savings is certainly better for a retiree than no retirement savings at all, but it takes a significant amount gradually built over a long period of time to build a significant level of financial security. Retirement savings of $100,000,[4] a sum that only 30 percent of the workers age 45–54 and only 42 percent of those age 55+ in the EBRI survey will equal or exceed, buys additional monthly income of $589 ($7,100 annually) for men at age 65 and $552 a month ($6,600 annually) for women at that age.[5] That would give men with $100,000 in retirement savings and average Social Security benefits a monthly retirement income of about $1,800 ($22,700 annually) and women with the same savings and Social Security benefits a monthly income of $1,750 ($22,200). Neither figure is likely to produce a comfortable retirement, and the EBRI data suggest that even that is out of reach for well over half of all Americans. Admittedly, these are rough numbers, and many people will receive higher-than-average Social Security benefits. However, many other people will end up receiving much less than average. We know from other research that five groups are most likely to undersave: small business employees, lower-income individuals, women, younger workers, and members of minority groups. However, the problems are not limited to just these five groups. By the way, the recent column by Robert Samuelson[6] that repeats industry assurances that all is well cited the Investment Company Institute (ICI) as saying that the median value of IRA and 401(k) accounts held by people aged 55–64 is $100,000.[7] If that is true, then half of all those with such accounts would have annual retirement incomes equal to or less than the $22,000-plus level I just mentioned if they receive average Social Security benefits. To make matters worse, when calculating the average amount in such accounts, researchers usually exclude those who have no account at all. In the case of the ICI data Samuelson cites, it appears that approximately 25 percent of households aged 55–64 did not have either a 401(k) or an IRA. They face an even worse future. How can industry researchers present the existing retirement system as working very well? The answer is by using selective statistics. As an example, the EBRI study includes a question asking how many employees have saved for retirement.[8] The answer for 2013 is 66 percent of all workers and 74 percent of those aged 55 to 64. If one stopped there, the picture would look very good. It is only when one digs in deeper and asks how much they have saved that the true problem becomes evident. Similarly, other studies[9] that show no serious problem focus on today’s retirees, who had much more access to a traditional defined benefit pension than tomorrow’s retirees will. While many of today’s retirees are comfortable, their success does not imply that younger workers will automatically have the same future. Access to Workplace Savings Is Essential It is not that people do not want to save or cannot save. They do. The problem is often the lack of access to a convenient savings plan, and the inability to understand the many savings options that exist. The existence of a workplace retirement savings plan is important. A recent Boston College Center for Retirement Research paper[10] found that access to a workplace retirement savings plan or pension is second only to having a job as the most important factor in assisting moderate- to low-income individuals to build retirement security. A wide variety of research shows that only about half of the U.S. workforce has the ability to save for retirement or has a pension at work. While there are a variety of data sources, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, another Boston College study[11] found that the coverage statistics are comparable between data sources when the same standards are applied. This included a study of IRS records[12] that appeared to show otherwise. Regardless of the exact percentage point used to estimate coverage, the sad fact is that millions of Americans currently lack the ability to save for retirement at work through payroll deduction. This is especially true for small business employees. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study[13] found that only about 14 percent (one in seven) of businesses with 100 or fewer employees offer their employees such a plan, and that between 51 percent and 71 percent of the roughly 42 million people who work for a small business lack the ability to save for retirement. PPI research shows that about 642,000 Oregonians between the ages of 18 and 64—about 47.6 percent—are employed by a company that does not offer a pension or retirement savings plan.[14] The Oregon number is slightly better than the 51.1 percent national figure. That translates into 57 million Americans who are employed by the private sector and cannot save for retirement at work. These are not just younger employees who are new to the workforce. They include midcareer individuals who move from a large company that offered a retirement plan to a smaller company that does not. Often, these midcareer workers end up with a gap in their savings history that damages their ability to build economic security. The Need for Better Coverage Is Widely Acknowledged AARP is certainly not the only organization to recognize the need to increase the number of people able to save for retirement through a payroll deduction plan or account. Here, in Oregon, the Retirement in Reach Coalition[15] is a broad-based collection of business, professional, labor, and civic groups that have come together to help more Oregonians to save. Nationally, a number of organizations, including many prominent research institutions, have written about the number of people who lack the ability to save for retirement and the need to improve coverage. Please note that these organizations do not necessarily support any specific solution or, indeed, any solution at all. However, all have written about either the need to expand coverage or how retirement security would be improved through greater coverage. As an example, Putnam Investments CEO Robert L. Reynolds has written about the need to improve the ability to save in a short paper titled “Three Steps that Could Shore up Retirement.”[16] The paper noted that “today—two years since the first boomers turned 65—the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that 49% of American workers are still ‘not confident at all’ or ‘not too confident’ about having enough money in retirement, 57% of pre-retirees have less than $25,000 saved for the future, and 32% of all workers do not have access to a retirement saving plan at work.” The paper’s Step Two was: “Access to workplace savings for all workers. Any worker paying FICA taxes should have access to a retirement savings plan at work.” Other organizations that have either issued papers or made statements about the number of people who lack an employer-sponsored retirement savings or pension plan include the following: the Brookings Institution’s Retirement Security Project,[17] the New America Foundation,[18] the Aspen Institute,[19] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,[20] the Heritage Foundation,[21] and the Urban Institute.[22] Again, this is not to imply that any of these organizations endorse any approach that Oregon might decide to take on retirement savings or that they support any part of my testimony. I mention them solely to show that concern about limited opportunities to save for retirement is widespread. Those without an Employer-based Plan In theory, everyone without an employer-based plan could save in an IRA, but EBRI research estimates that only about 1 out of 20 actually does so regularly.[23] In addition, payroll deduction is viewed as very important for encouraging retirement savings by people at every income level[24]. Overall, 61.5 percent of those surveyed in the EBRI 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey said that payroll deduction was very important for encouraging them to save for retirement, and another 27.8 percent said that it was somewhat important. Together, 89.3 percent said that it was either very or somewhat important. Further, the survey also found that a significant number of those currently saving would either stop or reduce their saving if payroll deduction was not available. It is much easier for people to save regularly if their savings are deducted from their paycheck before they receive it. Otherwise, the press of immediate bills tends to crowd out savings for longer-term goals. Another factor in the extremely low savings rate among those who can use only an IRA is availability and trust. Especially in low-income neighborhoods, there are often no financial institutions nearby other than check-cashing outlets. Low-income individuals are often reluctant to go to financial outlets in other areas as they may feel that they are not welcome or that they will be treated poorly. Another drawback that applies to individuals of all income levels is the fear that they will be taken advantage of. Because financial professionals will know much more about the subject than their potential customers and may use unfamiliar terms, people have a very real fear that they will be talked into something that benefits the financier rather than the saver. In addition, behavioral research shows that when people are faced with an important decision where they are uncertain what to do, they do nothing. This inertia factor is especially present in financial decisions like retirement savings. These are reasons why an approach that focuses solely on additional education is extremely unlikely to succeed. Such an approach does nothing to increase the number of local financial outlets or opportunities to save. In addition, such financial literacy training often uses the same complex terms that potential savers find confusing. There is a value to training, but only in addition to expanded access to retirement savings. On the other hand, when employees are presented with a plan at work that is structured in a way that provides guidance, they take the opportunity to save. This is true at all income levels. The Boston College study on why lower-income people are less likely to save that I mentioned earlier[25] showed very similar take-up rates between income levels. Eighty-six percent of those with incomes under 300 percent of the poverty line participated in a retirement savings system or pension if they were offered one and were eligible, compared to 95 percent of those with higher incomes. Existing Products Are Not the Solution Opponents of a state-sponsored retirement savings effort often cite the number and kind of existing products that are currently available to small businesses. A joint IRS/U.S. Department of Labor publication[26] lists seven types of retirement savings plans that are currently available. Unfortunately, most of them are both expensive and complicated or require the employer to make a contribution. Only one that is not widely available really enables small businesses to offer their employees an opportunity to save without saddling them with high costs or requiring savings. Both the traditional 401(k) and the automatic enrollment 401(k) are excellent solutions for employers who are willing to offer them. However, the GAO found[27] that smaller employers can pay much higher administrative costs than those paid by larger employers. In addition, they can be complicated and require employers to play a more active role than many are willing to do. Three other plans, the SEP IRA, the SIMPLE IRA, and the safe harbor 401(k), are either totally financed by employer contributions or require employers to make contributions. In addition, another of the seven options—a profit-sharing plan—is both completely financed with employer contributions and doesn’t require regular funding. While this plan does allow for profit sharing in good years, it does not necessarily include regular contributions that an individual can use to finance a retirement income. The seventh type of retirement savings account available to small businesses is the payroll deduction IRA. It does not require (or allow) any employer contribution, or saddle the employer with complex regulatory burdens or impose significant costs. All the employer has to do is make it available to employees, deduct the contributions from their paychecks, and then send it to the financial provider. Unfortunately, it is not widely available or sold, as it offers financial services companies only limited income potential. Oregon can help to change that situation. Another type of retirement savings tool, MyRA, was announced in President Obama’s January State of the Union speech. MyRA has some very positive features,[28] but it is not a solution or a substitute for anything Oregon might decide to do to help more people to save for retirement. A key weakness is that an individual can only have a maximum of $30,000 in MyRA. That is not nearly enough for any appreciable improvement in financial security. Second, MyRA savings will be deposited only in government bonds. While that investment is completely safe, it does not allow any real investment growth. An individual with just a MyRA is likely to get little more than the inflation-adjusted amount they contributed. Why Oregon Should Be Concerned about This Problem This is a state problem because doing nothing will mean higher state and local taxes for your children and grandchildren. Low-income retirees will need state and local services financed by state and local taxes for health care, housing, senior centers, and a host of other services. As Oregon ages and the baby boomers retire, the demand from this population for additional state government services will only grow. However, there is a simple, low-cost alternative to taxpayer-funded government services. What Oregon Can Do to Help The statute that created the Oregon Retirement Savings Task Force includes the limitation that you cannot recommend anything that might be contrary to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Some would have you believe that this limits you to proposing additional employee education. This is not the case. While ERISA as it is currently written does limit Oregon’s options, there are still avenues open to the state that would help to directly increase the number of Oregonians who can save for retirement at work. Oregon could still sponsor a payroll deduction IRA[29] that could be available at low cost to every resident of the state who is not currently covered by another retirement savings or pension plan. Such an account could be available through either state-managed investments or one or more private sector providers chosen and monitored by a state agency. The state, the employer, or any private sector provider would not be responsible for the performance of the savings, and there would be no promised retirement benefits. All of the savings would come from and be owned exclusively by the individual saver. It would be up to the saver to monitor his or her eligibility and compliance with contributions rules. The small costs of such a program could be paid out of fees assessed on the accounts, or the start-up costs could be subsidized by the state. A key fact is that the only liability faced by the employer would be to collect and forward individual contributions to the provider or agency on a timely basis. In theory, such contributions could be forwarded using the same schedule as the state currently uses to collect its income tax revenues. Federal law limits the role of the employer to encourage its employees to save for retirement through providing general information about the payroll deduction IRA program. The employer is also allowed to answer any questions about the program or to refer them to the IRA provider and provide any informational materials written by the IRA provider, as long as no endorsement by the employer is provided. At all times, the employer must remain neutral about the provider. This is not a perfect plan, and it does not include features that many who support increased access to retirement savings would like to see. However, we believe that such a plan would be legal and, if combined with an educational program, could increase retirement savings among Oregonians. As federal law either changes or is reinterpreted, additional features and services could be added. This would be a starting place, not a final destination. Automatic Enrollment At this point, any Oregon plan would probably not require the use of automatic enrollment. However, as both state and federal law evolve, it would be helpful to explore encouraging that feature in any retirement savings plan. Under automatic enrollment, an employee continues to have total control over his or her retirement savings decisions, but unless the employee decides otherwise, he or she is enrolled and saves a set percentage of income in a specific investment choice. Automatic enrollment uses behavioral economics to make inertia work for the employee. These features work. The five groups mentioned earlier that are most likely to undersave (women, younger employees, small business employees, lower-income employees, and minority groups) all see their participation rates climb from very low levels to close to 90 percent. And employees like automatic enrollment. A 2007 survey[30] of automatically enrolled workers showed that 95 percent found that it made saving easy. Eighty-five percent started to save earlier than they would have without it. Almost all of the employees who were automatically enrolled and remained in the plan said that they were satisfied with the process (97 percent) and were glad their company offered automatic enrollment (98 percent). Even those who were automatically enrolled and decided not to save liked the feature, with 90 percent being satisfied with the process and 79 percent being glad their company offered automatic enrollment. Conclusion Again, thank you for allowing me to testify today. Improving the ability to save for retirement through the increased availability of payroll deduction savings would address a real need both here in Oregon and nationwide. From a policy standpoint, an active program that increases the access that small business employees have to payroll deduction retirement savings plans would help the nearly 650,000 Oregonians who don’t currently have such an opportunity. It would enable them to build economic security through their own efforts. BEST PRACTICES: A universally available payroll deduction IRA that is available to any Oregonian who currently lacks an employer-provided retirement savings or pension plan. A very short list of available investments that includes both a stable value fund and a balanced or target date fund. New savers would go into a previously designated investment unless they chose otherwise. Savers wishing other investments would be able to find other IRA accounts. Regular statements that clearly indicate investments, earnings, fees, and account balance. A number indicating the monthly retirement income that such a plan could produce if the current amount is saved would be very helpful. A coordinated statewide education program that explains the accounts and how to use them as well as the value of saving for retirement. Financial literacy classes in every school. [1] “Fast Facts and Figures about Social Security 2013,” U.S. Social Security Administration Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. This is the number for new retirement awards. The average amount is slightly lower. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.html#page5 [2] 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey Fact Sheet #4,” Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). http://www.ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/2013/Final-FS.RCS-13.FS_4.Age.FINAL.pdf [3] “2014 RCS FACT SHEET #6,” EBRI. http://ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/2014/RCS14.FS-6.Prep-Ret.Final.pdf. [4] As mentioned, the EBRI numbers are for household savings excluding home equity and defined benefit pensions (if any). The calculations on how retirement savings would affect total retirement income assume that the entire amount of those household savings is used to purchase an annuity for one individual. In reality, only a portion of household savings would be available to be converted into retirement income, and that amount is likely to be divided between two earners, so these numbers probably overstate the effect on retirement income. [5] These annuitized amounts were calculated at http://www.incomesolutions.com/ on May 9, 2014. [6] Robert J. Samuelson, “Are We Under-Saving for Retirement?” Washington Post, April 27, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-are-we-under-saving-for-retirement/2014/04/27/6cd02562-cc93-11e3-95f7-7ecdde72d2ea_story.html [7] According to the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF), the median retirement account balance for families headed by a person aged 55–64 is $100,000. This number only includes the approximately 60 percent of those households that have a positive retirement account balance and excludes those that have no positive retirement account balance. See the SCF chart book at http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/2010_SCF_Chartbook.pdf, and click on “retirement accounts” and “age of head.” [8] “2013 Retirement Confidence Survey Fact Sheet #4,” EBRI. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/2013/Final-FS.RCS-13.FS_4.Age.FINAL.pdf [9] John Karl Scholz and Ananth Seshadri, “Are All Americans Saving ‘Optimally’ for Retirement?” Michigan Retirement Research Center Research Paper No. 2008-189, September 1, 2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337653 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1337653. [10] April Yanyuan Wu and Matthew S. Rutledge, “Lower-Income Individuals without Pensions: Who Misses Out and Why,” Boston College Center for Retirement Research working paper CRR WP 2014-2, March 2014. http://crr.bc.edu/working-papers/lower-income-individuals-without-pensions-who-misses-out-and-why/. [11] Alicia H. Munnell and Dina Bleckman, “Is Pension Coverage a Problem in the Private Sector?” Boston College Center for Retirement Research IB#14-7, April 2014 [12] Howard M. Iams and Patrick J. Purcell, “The Impact of Retirement Account Distributions on Measures of Family Income,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 73 No. 2, 2013. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v73n2/v73n2p77.html [13] RETIREMENT SECURITY: Challenges and Prospects for Employees of Small Businesses,” Statement of Charles A. Jeszeck, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, GAO-13-748T, July 16, 2013. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655889.pdf. [14] The full list of states is available at http://action.aarp.org/site/DocServer/Workers_without_a_Retirement_Plan.pdf?docID=1961 [15] For more information, including a list of members, please see http://www.retirementinreach.org/. [16] Robert L. Reynolds, “Three Steps that Could Shore up Retirement,” Putnam Investments blog entry, July 9, 2013. http://www.theretirementsavingschallenge.com/2013/07/three-steps-that-could-shore-up-retirement-security/. [17] J. Mark Iwry and David C. John, “Pursuing Universal Retirement Security through Automatic IRAs,” Brookings Institution, July 2009. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2009/07/automatic-ira-iwry [18] Reid Cramer, Justin King, Elliot Schreur, and Aleta Sprague, “Solving the Retirement Puzzle, The Potential of myRAs to Build a Personal Safety Net,” New America Foundation, May 12, 2014. http://assets.newamerica.net/publications/policy/solving_the_retirement_puzzle?utm_source=Assets+Solving+the+Retirement+Puzzle+myRA+release&utm_campaign=myRA+paper+release&utm_medium=email. [19] “Comments to the Committee on Ways and Means Working Group on Pensions and Retirement,” Aspen Institute’s Initiative for Financial Security, April 10, 2013. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/Ways%20%26%20Means%20Pensions%26Retirement%20Submission_Final.pdf [20] See the joint statement on retirement security on page 1 at https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/021038_LABR%20Rethinking%20Retirement%20Event%20Summary_final.pdf. [21] 21 David C. John, “Time to Address the Retirement Saving Crisis,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3759, October 18, 2012. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/time-to-address-the-retirement-savings-crisis [22] Barbara A. Butrica and Richard W. Johnson, “How Much Might Automatic IRAs Improve Retirement Security for Low- and Moderate-Wage Workers?” Urban Institute, Brief 33, July 2011. http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412360-Automatic-IRAs-Improve-Retirement-Security.pdf. [23] Unpublished estimates from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) of the 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation Wave 7 Topical Module (2006 data). [24] Jack VanDerhei, “The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans from Taxable Income: Results from the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,” EBRI Notes, March 2011. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_03_Mar-11.K-Taxes_Acct-HP.pdf. [25] April Yanyuan Wu and Matthew S. Rutledge, “Lower-Income Individuals without Pensions: Who Misses out and Why,” Boston College Center for Retirement Research working paper CRR WP 2014-2, March 2014. http://crr.bc.edu/working-papers/lower-income-individuals-without-pensions-who-misses-out-and-why/. [26] See IRS Publication 3998, Choosing a Retirement Solution for Your Small Business, for an outline of the seven types of retirement accounts. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3998.pdf. [27] “RETIREMENT SECURITY: Challenges and Prospects for Employees of Small Businesses,” Statement of Charles A. Jeszeck, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, GAO-13-748T, July 16, 2013. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655889.pdf. [28] For an outline of MyRA, see http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/FINAL%20myRA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf [29] A brief discussions of payroll deduction IRAs can be found in IRS Publication 4587, Payroll Deduction IRAs for Small Businesses. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4587.pdf. [30] http://www.retirementmadesimpler.org/Library/FINAL%20RMS%20Topline%20Report%2011-5-07.pdf Authors David C. John Publication: Oregon Retirement Savings Task Force Full Article
vi Better Financial Security in Old Age? The Promise of Longevity Annuities By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:00:00 -0500 Event Information November 6, 201410:00 AM - 12:00 PM ESTFalk AuditoriumBrookings Institution1775 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC 20036 Register for the EventLongevity annuities—a financial innovation that provides protection against outliving your money late in life—have the potential to reshape the retirement security landscape. Typically bought at retirement, a longevity annuity offers a guaranteed stream of income beginning in ten or 20 years at a markedly lower cost than a conventional annuity that begins paying out immediately. Sales have grown rapidly and it will be even easier to purchase the annuities in the future given new Treasury regulations. While economists have touted the attractiveness of longevity annuities as a way to ensure the ability to maintain one’s living standards late in life, significant barriers to a robust market remain—including lack of consumer awareness, questions about product value, and employer concerns with taking on fiduciary responsibility by offering these products to their employees. Can longevity annuities overcome these barriers to find widespread popularity among Americans retirees? On November 6, the Retirement Security Project hosted a panel of experts to discuss the potential for these products to contribute to the economic security of older Americans, in addition to policy reforms that could lead to greater take-up by retirement plan sponsors and consumers alike. Following a presentation by Katharine Abraham that laid out the issues, two panels of prominent experts added their insights on the promise and challenges of this burgeoning market. Video Better Financial Security in Old-Age? The Promise of Longevity AnnuitiesUnderstanding Longevity AnnuitiesEliminating Barriers to Market DevelopmentLongevity Annuities Are Not Necessarily Niche ProductsThe Adverse Selection Issue Audio Better Financial Security in Old-Age? The Promise of Longevity Annuities Transcript Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf) Event Materials 06_retirement_longevity_annuities_abraham_harrislongevity_annuities_presentation_abraham20141106_longevity_annuities_transcript Full Article
vi 1,000,000 of Our Neighbors at Risk: Improving Retirement Security for Marylanders By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:02:00 -0500 Increasingly, many Marylanders are unprepared for retirement. The US has the broadest range of retirement savings options in the world. There are thousands of retirement products offered. But most Marylanders don’t use them. The need is growing. The Baby Boomers are the largest generation in history. They will live longer in retirement than any generation in history. But – financially – many are not prepared. Many have virtually no retirement savings: more than a third those within ten years of retirement age have saved less than $10,000. $10,000 invested and spent over the average person’s retirement works out to about $1,000 of income per year. Even with Social Security, that’s not much to live on. Fears about retirement are the #1 economic concern. Many Marylanders know they’re unprepared – and they’re worried about it. Concerns about retirement security are now more broadly based than the cost of health care, fear of job loss or other economic concerns – and have been for over a decade.3 Those concerns have grown since the financial crisis, even though the stock market has recovered. Many know they’ll have to defer retirement—and many fear they will never be able to afford to retire at all. The key to retirement saving is having a retirement plan and contributing to it every paycheck. But many businesses, including most smaller businesses, don’t offer retirement plans. As a result 1,000,000 Marylanders working in private businesses across the State don’t have a retirement plan. There are, of course, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) -- but almost no one uses them who didn’t get access through an employer-based plan via payroll deduction. Having a plan is essential, but not a panacea. Even when plans are available, many employees don’t join. Many who do contribute and save less than they need to meet their own goals. Even with plans, many will need to save more. The challenge continues at retirement, because most of these plans are paid out in a single lump sum payment—few plans offer reliable retirement income for life that traditional pensions do. Since most retirees do not consult financial advisors and are not financial experts themselves, some who live longer than average or are unlucky in their investments will find that they haven’t saved enough and will exhaust their savings. They will, of course, have Social Security. That’s why it’s so important that Social Security be both preserved and strengthened. But the average monthly benefit in Maryland is about $1,300 and for most people Social Security covers only a fraction of their basic needs in retirement. Most Marylanders will need additional income from retirement savings – and the State of Maryland can help them get it. Other states and other governments are making it easier for people to save and for private employers to help them do it. Maryland should, too. Acting now will save Maryland taxpayers millions in the future. California, Massachusetts, and Illinois have already enacted legislation. Illinois created a new program that requires employers who have no retirement plan to automatically enroll their employees in a state-created program. Massachusetts authorized a program for uncovered employees of non-profits. California created a board to plan and propose program similar to that in Illinois. Similar legislation is being or has been introduced in some fifteen other states – states all across the country with varying political orientations, populations, and economic bases. Although there are many variations under consideration, these programs generally provide for an automatic payroll deduction of a set amount unless the employee opts out. Funds are to be invested professionally and may be pooled to achieve higher returns and lower costs. Those who cannot or do not want to make complex financial decisions are not required to do so – their contributions are placed automatically into a reliable fund or set of funds. In order to ensure that employers – many of whom are small businesses – can participate in a program, it must be designed to help them avoid significant disruption, expense or administrative burden. This can be accomplished by enabling employers to use current payroll processes to help their employees to build retirement security, without requiring employers to make contributions themselves. If Maryland doesn’t act now, Maryland taxpayers will face higher costs for decades to come. These plans are designed to be self-sustaining: their operating costs are paid for by plan contributions and the State would not assume any obligations. In practice, however, these plans will end up saving taxpayer funds: If Maryland doesn’t act now, Maryland taxpayers will face higher costs for decades to come, as retirees are forced to turn to State assistance instead of living on their own savings. There are many ways to improve retirement security. The key is for businesses to help their employees save, without becoming overburdened themselves. Task Force is not recommending any one approach, but strongly recommends that Maryland join other states, by developing and implementing a plan that helps Marylanders have more secure retirements.We recommend development of a specific state-based program that meets Maryland’s needs from the options discussed in our report. We Can Do Better: Principles for Improving Marylanders’ Retirement In developing that program, we recommend the following principles as guidelines: Make it easier for all Marylanders to save for retirement. Access: Every Marylander should have access to an automatic payroll deduction retirement savings plan through their employer. People who are self-employed or unemployed should be able to make contributions at the same time that they pay their State taxes. Simplicity: People should have access to simple, low cost retirement savings plans that make enrollment automatic (auto-enrollment), that don’t require complex investment and savings decisions by providing low-cost automatic (default) options, and that enable savers to grow their saving rate over time through auto-escalation. Portability: They must be able to keep their retirement savings plan when they change jobs. Individuals should never be forced out of a plan because they change or lose their jobs. Workers should have the choice of keeping their existing retirement savings in the plan when they move to another employer or consolidating their retirement savings by moving it to another retirement plan. Choice: Of course, they should have the ability to change the amount that they save, change their investments, move to another plan, or stop saving entirely. Make it easier for private employers to help their employees save. Since most of the companies who do not offer a retirement plan are smaller businesses, it’s essential that they aren’t forced to take on significant additional financial, administrative or regulatory burdens. Employers should be able to use their current payroll processes to quickly and easily forward employee contributions to a savings plan without assuming significant additional legal or fiduciary responsibilities or taking on significant additional cost. Employer contributions should not be required, but should be permitted if allowed by federal law. Consumer protection, disclosure, and other protections are essential, but these and other regulatory responsibilities should be undertaken by the program itself and not imposed on businesses. Make it easier for Marylanders to get reliable retirement income for life. When people retire, they no longer have a paycheck that provides reliable monthly income. They should be able to have a reliable monthly income stream from their retirement savings, too. Retirees should not have to worry about how much their retirement income might be or how long their pension will last if, like half of Americans, they live longer than average. Investments should be low cost, provide good value, and be professionally managed. Any program should be self-sustaining. Maryland should help Marylanders save for retirement without risking the State’s credit. It should cover its own operating costs without relying on taxpayer funding or risking the State’s credit by creating contingent liabilities. Downloads Download the full report Authors Joshua GotbaumDavid C. John Publication: The Maryland Governor’s Task Force to Ensure Retirement Security for All Marylanders Full Article
vi Making retirement saving even more valuable by adding automatic emergency savings By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:15:00 -0400 Editor's Note: This blog originally appeared on AARP's Thinking Policy blog Automatic enrollment for retirement saving is both effective and popular among all income, gender and ethnic groups. It has increased participation, helped people to both start saving earlier and to make appropriate investment choices.This mechanism would be even more useful, especially for younger workers and those with low-to-moderate incomes if retirement savings plans also allowed employees to save for unexpected expenses. Recent research by the US Financial Diaries Project, which looks at the actual income flows of low-to-moderate income consumers shows why this feature would be valuable. Their studies found that low-to-moderate income households are saving for near-term small emergencies. However, those situations happen so often that they prevent households from building up higher savings for larger emergencies. A split auto enrollment plan would help them to have money for those bigger problems. One way to structure such a plan would be to automatically enroll an employee into a saving program where part of the contributions would go to a regular 401k-style retirement saving account and the rest into a passbook savings account at a federally insured bank or credit union. The emergency savings could be a percentage of the total contribution or based on income levels, such as a percentage of contributions on the first $20,000 of annual income. Auto escalation would apply only to the retirement contributions. Some will correctly argue that the split reduces potential retirement savings, but it also potentially reduces leakage from those accounts. When an unexpected expense arises, workers will have other savings that they can use instead of dipping into their retirement accounts. As with all automatic enrollment plans, the saver would have complete control, and could choose to save more or less, change where the savings go, or even to not participate at all. If the employee already has a passbook account, he or she could either direct all contributions to the retirement account or send the passbook money to the existing account instead of a new one. Savers would receive whatever tax benefit their plan type offers for retirement contributions, but they would not receive any additional tax advantages for the passbook balances. They could withdraw money from the passbook account at any time without any penalty. And those balances would earn whatever interest rate the bank or credit union is paying on passbook accounts. Because the passbook account feature is under the legal framework of a retirement plan, it would be appropriate that no more than half of the total contribution would go into general savings. In addition, a plan should be required to set its base contribution rate at 6 percent of income before it could offer such a feature. The passbook savings are intended to supplement retirement contributions, and not to replace them. And if the employer matches savings, that amount would go into the retirement account. This type of split is possibly legal already, but there are technical issues that need to be considered. The 2006 Pension Protection Act eliminated any state legal barriers for automatic enrollment into a retirement account. It may be that federal regulators could interpret that provision as applying also to passbook amounts as the split savings is a feature of the retirement plan. If not, then legislative action would be needed. Certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act may also need to be revised. And to encourage employers to offer such an account, regulatory burdens should be kept to a minimum. An employer would be considered to have met its responsibilities for picking an appropriate product under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act if it chooses a simple passbook account at any federally insured bank or credit union. Adding an automatic enrollment passbook savings account could make 401k-type retirement accounts even more valuable to new and low-to-moderate income savers. Retirement would always remain the primary reason to save, but the split contribution would make a 401k more attractive and help to build a general savings habit. Authors David C. John Publication: AARP Image Source: © Steve Nesius / Reuters Full Article
vi Structuring state retirement saving plans: A guide to policy design and management issues By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:45:00 -0400 Introduction Many American workers do not have access to employer-sponsored payroll deduction plans for retirement saving. Groups with low rates of access include younger workers, members of minority groups, and those with low-to-moderate incomes. 1 Small business employees are especially at risk. Only about 14 percent of businesses with 100 or fewer employees offer their employees a retirement plan, leaving between 51 and 71 percent of the roughly 42 million people who work for a small business without access to an employer-administered plan (Government Accountability Office 2013). Lack of access makes it difficult to build retirement wealth. A study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (2014) shows that 62 percent of employees with access to an employer-sponsored plan held more than $25,000 in saving balances and 22 percent had $100,000 or more. In contrast, among those without access to a plan, 94 percent held less than $25,000 and only three percent hold $100,000 or more. Although workers without an employer-based plan can contribute to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), very few do.2 But employees at all income levels tend to participate at high rates in plans that are structured to provide guidance about the decisions they should make (Wu and Rutledge 2014). With these considerations in mind, many experts and policy makers have advocated for increased retirement plan coverage. While a national approach would be desirable, there has been little legislative progress to date. States, however, are acting. Three states have already created state-sponsored retirement saving plans for small business employees, and 25 are in some stage of considering such a move (Pension Rights Center 2015). John and Koenig (2014) estimate that 55 million U.S. wage and salary workers between the ages of 18 and 64 lack the ability to save for retirement through an employer-sponsored payroll deduction plan. Among such workers with wages between $30,000 and $50,000 only about one out of 20 contributes regularly to an IRA (Employee Benefit Research Institute 2006). This paper highlights a variety of issues that policymakers will need to address in creating and implementing an effective state-sponsored retirement saving plan. Section II discusses policy design choices. Section III discusses management issues faced by states administering such a plan, employers and employees. Section IV is a short conclusion. Note: this paper was presented at a October 7, 2015 Brookings Institution event focused on state retirement policies. Downloads Download the paper Authors William G. GaleDavid C. John Full Article
vi Two important new retirement savings initiatives from the Obama Administration By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:10:00 -0500 In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has taken the two most important steps in nearly a decade to increase access to retirement savings for more than 55 million Americans who currently do not participate in a retirement saving plan. The Treasury Department's myRA program, launched this month, will help new savers and the self-employed start accounts without risk or fees. And earlier this week, the Department of Labor clarified rules that will make it easier for states to create retirement savings plans for small business employees. myRA The new myRAs provide another way for new savers to build small nest eggs. They will also help consultants, contract employees, and part-time workers save for retirement or for emergencies. For employees, myRAs are payroll deduction savings accounts designed to meet the needs of new savers and lower income workers. They have no fees, cost nothing to open, and allow savers to regularly contribute any amount. Savings are invested in US Treasury bonds, so savers can’t lose principal, an important feature for low-income workers who might otherwise abandon plans if they face early losses. Those who are not formal employees and thus lack access to an employer-sponsored plan can participate in myRA through direct withdrawals from a checking or other bank account. As the growing “gig economy” creates more independent workers, the myRA will be a valuable entry to the private retirement system. These workers might otherwise retire on little more than Social Security. All workers can build myRA balances by redirecting income tax refunds into their accounts. Because a myRA is a Roth IRA (that is, contributions are made from after-tax income), savers can withdraw their own contributions at any time without penalties or tax liability. When a myRA reaches $15,000, it must be rolled into another account, and Treasury may make it possible for workers to transfer these savings into funds managed by one of several pre-approved private providers. MyRAs won’t replace either state-sponsored plans or employer-related pension or retirement savings plans. However, they will make it possible for new and lower-income savers as well as the self-employed to build financial security without risk or fees. State-Sponsored Retirement Savings Plans The DOL announcement gave the green light to several state models, including Automatic IRAs, marketplace models, and Multiple Employer Plans. About two dozen states are considering these plans and, so far, Illinois and Oregon have passed “Secure Choice” plans based on the Automatic IRA, while Washington State has passed a marketplace plan. DOL’s proposed Automatic IRA rules (open for a 60 day comment period) would let states administer automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRAs provided that the plans meet certain conditions for selecting or managing the investments and consumer protections. States would also have to require businesses to offer such a plan if they don’t already offer their employees a pension or other retirement savings plan. Companies that are not required to offer an Automatic IRA or other plan, but decide to join the state plan voluntarily could still be subject to ERISA. The Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution first designed the Automatic IRA, which was proposed by the Administration before being adopted by some states. In a separate interpretation, DOL allowed states to offer marketplace plans without being subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These plans are essentially websites where small businesses may select pre-screened plans that meet certain fee or other criteria. Under the DOL guidance, these marketplaces may include ERISA plans, but states cannot require employers to offer them. However, if states sponsor a marketplace model, they could also require employers without other plans to offer Automatic IRAs. Finally, DOL’s rules let states administer Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs), where individual employers all use the same ERISA-covered model plan. MEPs are usually simplified 401(k)-type plans. Because the state would be acting on behalf of participating employers, it could assume some functions that would otherwise be the responsibility of the employer. These include handling ERISA compliance, selecting investments, and managing the plan. The Retirement Security Project has issued a paper and held an event discussing ways states could create small business retirement savings plans. The paper is available here and the event is available here. Together, the two initiatives—the new MyRA and the state-sponsored plans-- could greatly increase the number of American workers who’ll be able to supplement their Social Security benefits with personal savings. Authors William G. GaleDavid C. John Full Article
vi Policy design and management issues for state retirement saving plans By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:52:00 -0400 Many American workers do not have access to employer-sponsored payroll deduction plans for retirement saving. Groups with low rates of access include younger workers, members of minority groups, and those with low-to-moderate incomes. Small business employees are especially at risk. Only about 14 percent of businesses with 100 or fewer employees offer their employees a retirement plan, leaving between 51 and 71 percent of the roughly 42 million people who work for a small business without access to an employer-administered plan (Government Accountability Office 2013). Lack of access makes it difficult to build retirement wealth. A study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (2014) shows that 62 percent of employees with access to an employer-sponsored plan held more than $25,000 in saving balances and 22 percent had $100,000 or more. In contrast, among those without access to a plan, 94 percent held less than $25,000 and only 3 percent hold $100,000 or more. Although workers without an employer-based plan can contribute to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), very few do. But employees at all income levels tend to participate at high rates in plans that are structured to provide guidance about the decisions they should make (Wu and Rutledge 2014). With these considerations in mind, many experts and policy makers have advocated for increased retirement plan coverage. While a national approach would be desirable, there has been little legislative progress to date. States, however, are acting. Three states have already created state-sponsored retirement saving plans for small business employees, and 25 are in some stage of considering such a move (Pension Rights Center 2015). This policy brief, based on John and Gale (2015), highlights a variety of issues that policymakers will need to address in creating and implementing an effective state-sponsored retirement saving plan. Download "Policy Design and Management Issues for State Retirement Saving Plans" » Downloads Download "Policy Design and Management Issues for State Retirement Saving Plans"Download the policy brief Authors William G. GaleDavid C. John Full Article
vi Who’s afraid of COVID-19? By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:30:02 +0000 Humans are bad at assessing risk even in the best of times. During a pandemic—when the disease is unfamiliar, people are isolated and stressed, and the death toll is rising—our risk perception becomes even more distorted, with fear often overwhelming reason. This is a recipe for disastrous policy mistakes. To be sure, the danger posed… Full Article
vi How school closures during COVID-19 further marginalize vulnerable children in Kenya By webfeeds.brookings.edu Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:39:07 +0000 On March 15, 2020, the Kenyan government abruptly closed schools and colleges nationwide in response to COVID-19, disrupting nearly 17 million learners countrywide. The social and economic costs will not be borne evenly, however, with devastating consequences for marginalized learners. This is especially the case for girls in rural, marginalized communities like the Maasai, Samburu,… Full Article