Category: Testimony

Medical Debt Protections Paired with Debt Elimination and Addressing High Health Care Cost Leads to Health Equity

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on S2806, the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP supports the goals of S2806, which are to prohibit the reporting of medical debt to credit reporting agencies and ensure that patients are protected from financial ruin just from seeking medical care. This is particularly crucial for the well-being of the state’s residents with lower incomes. Many with lower incomes avoid preventative medical care due to costs and time restrictions, meaning that those with the least are also the most likely to face medical emergencies.[i] Beyond the burden of the debt, the current status quo means that this debt can be reported to credit reporting agencies and impact other vital needs: with a reported debt, suddenly housing and other means of support may be inaccessible, making more medical issues even more likely. This is true not only for those without insurance, but for those with insurance coverage and up-to-date preventive medical care as well, as unexpected medical emergencies happen and affordability remains a critical issue.[ii]

However, there are a few amendments that would make this bill stronger for the patients that it is seeking to assist. For example, it is important to strengthen the ability of patients to take action when violations of the bill occur, as well as ensure that the care-providing entity remains responsible for offering a reasonable payment plan. Additionally, it is important that all means by which patients pay for care are included in this reporting ban — meaning that things like certain medical care credit cards and the broad category of “secured debt” should not be excluded.

It is important to note that this bill does not address the root issue of high costs in our health care system, nor does it eliminate medical debt altogether. However, this will at least provide families with the knowledge that medical debt will not pervade their lives and create obstacles to other basic necessities. This bill is crucial to addressing calamities and the ways that our expensive health care system currently cripples families for life. By prohibiting the reporting of debt to credit reporting agencies and ensuring that patients are protected, we can bring more humanity to our health care system and promise residents that medical debt will not control their future.

We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill with the adoption of the proposed amendments suggested by the groups here today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] U.S. Census Bureau, Most Vulnerable More Likely to Depend on Emergency Rooms for Preventable Care, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/who-makes-more-preventable-visits-to-emergency-rooms.html

[ii] Commonwealth Fund, The Cost of Not Getting Care: Income Disparities in the Affordability of Health Services Across High-Income Countries, 2023. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2023/nov/cost-not-getting-care-income-disparities-affordability-health

Benefits to Allocating Tax Credits for Artificial Intelligence Are Risky and Unclear

Posted on by Peter Chen

Allocating $500 million in tax credits in untested technology like artificial intelligence should give the state pause. Business tax credits should be used sparingly when subsidizing private profits, yet this proposal has almost no guard rails that ensure that these investments are responsible or sustainable, nor does it require that the jobs created be based in economically distressed communities.

One major concern is the redirecting of Aspire and Emerge credits to an unrelated purpose. Aspire and Emerge focus on revitalizing economically distressed areas with transit-oriented development and job creation. The new AI program would use those potential funds instead on promoting a narrow and risky subsector employing relatively few people. Without the commitment to economically distressed municipalities, it’s likely that AI tax credits would end up in already-wealthy communities and business owner pockets, rather than in the communities most in need.

AI data centers are also notorious for being extremely energy-intensive, with the International Energy Agency estimating that data centers and artificial intelligence will use as much energy as the entire country of Japan by 2026. As a state committed to reducing greenhouse emissions and increasing energy efficiency, New Jersey would be wise to put safeguards in place to prevent an increase in emissions at a time when the state can scarcely meet its current emissions reduction goals.

There may be a sense that because these credits come from unexpended Aspire and Emerge allocations that they are “free money.” But make no mistake, if a tax credit is handed out, the check will come due. The state has already seen the result of these credits in prior years with revenue reductions in the current tax year, as OLS detailed in its revenue report.

A $500 million tax credit to subsidize a risky investment deserves careful consideration, not a vague last-minute proposal with a mere sketch of guardrails and unclear benefits to the state.

NJPP urges the committee to pause this proposal for a robust debate rather than rubber-stamp it.

Handouts to Horse Racing Industry Do Little to Benefit Working New Jerseyans

Posted on by Peter Chen

The state of New Jersey should not be in the business of subsidizing horse racing at all, let alone at a level of $20 million a year. Horse racing is not a public service, a benefit to the public at large, or frankly a benefit at all. It is, rather, a private multi-billion dollar industry, whose profits go largely to the pockets of executives and investors, not everyday New Jerseyans.

Nationally, purse amounts are substantially above pre-pandemic trend with average purse amounts at an all-time record high. Meanwhile gaming revenues and profits continue to increase. Again, it is unclear why these subsidies are needed or justified, nor whether they were needed at all in the first place.

At a time when everyday New Jerseyans continue to struggle with affordability and with the state running a structural deficit and burning through its surplus, handing $100 million to further prop up the horse racing industry puts state dollars where they are least needed.

I urge you to vote no on this bill.

Tax Credit Awards Should Benefit Communities, Not Just Developers and Landowners

Posted on by Peter Chen

Any changes that loosen requirements for developers and landowners when it comes to redevelopment tax credits should be carefully scrutinized, as stringent requirements are necessary to ensure that tax credit awards represent a true benefit to their communities rather than mere tax giveaways. It’s unclear why changes are necessary to Aspire given that the legislature amended the program last year and the EDA has just begun awarding credits based on the regulations updated to those legislative changes.

A few items of concern in the current bill:

  1. Removal of the three-bedroom apartment requirement: New Jersey rental housing remains scarce especially for affordable family units. The replacement of the three-bedroom requirement with a mere 5 percent increase in project cost for three-bedroom inclusion does not change the economic incentives for developers, who can obtain much more rent per square foot from non-family units. Requiring family housing should be part of affordable housing policy broadly.
  2. Use of credits for warehousing: Even with the addition of a $10 million environmental remediation requirement, warehousing should not be the focus of the Aspire program. As warehousing expands its footprint across the state, it’s unclear why warehouses need any incentives to build, even if substantial environmental remediation costs exist.
  3. Inclusion of parking in total square footage: The purpose of a transformative project is to improve communities with dramatic changes in residential or commercial space. New Jersey should not be subsidizing housing for cars at the expense of housing for people.
  4. Reduction in retail space: Reducing the requirement from 50,000 to 20,000 square feet of commercial space is a dramatic shift with no explanation. Again, defining “transformative” downwards is not clearly benefiting communities that have faced underinvestment for years.
  5. Redevelopment Bridge Program within EDA: Although a bridge financing program may be a good policy in order to assist in building the necessary finance stack for construction, NJPP has concerns about the EDA issuing loans and loan guarantees through the bridge program as well as the credits against which the loans are guaranteed. This creates a potential conflict.
  6. Carry-forward and transfer concerns: Extending the time window for redemption does increase the value of the credits, but each change in the time window for redemption also results in erosion of the predictability of credit claims. As seen in this year’s budget, tax credits from years earlier can come back to bite state revenue in a future year, making it more difficult to estimate revenues.

NJPP urges the committee to revisit and revise this legislation to address some of these concerns and also to pump the brakes on wholesale changes to the Aspire program this soon after previous changes.

Film Tax Credits Are a Bad Deal for New Jersey, With Few Benefits Coming Back to the State

Posted on by Peter Chen

Film tax credits have long been a bad deal for states, yielding pennies on the dollar while leaving Hollywood studios the lion’s share of the benefits. The current bill would loosen requirements on these credits even further, weakening the case of their supposed economic benefits to New Jersey.

One main concern is the treatment of Pennsylvania workers as New Jersey workers for the purposes of defining qualified production expenses. Why should the state be subsidizing workers from other states who pay income elsewhere? If a film production uses out-of-state labor, that’s certainly a choice they can make, but it’s unclear why New Jersey would allow companies to count those workers towards their economic costs accrued in-state.

Another is the rollover of Aspire and Emerge credits into the film tax credit program. Aspire and Emerge each have requirements on projects that limit credits to deserving programs that can serve to revitalize underinvested communities. This bill allows unused tax credits from Aspire and Emerge to simply be made available through this program to a wider range of potential claimants and raises the cap to $300 million. Given the long-term financial cost of tax credits on the state budget, the state should think twice before expanding access to tax credits without stringent requirements on ensuring benefits go to communities, not big corporations.

Given the dire economic straits the state budget finds itself in, it may be tempting to view the film tax credit program as free money, which can be doled out without appropriation and without budgetary cost. But this is purely an illusion; loosening requirements on tax credit programs means money going out the door with fewer benefits coming back to the state.

NJPP urges the committee to vote no on this legislation.

Prohibiting Reporting Medical Debt to Credit Reporting Agencies Would Help Protect New Jersey’s Most Vulnerable Residents from Financial Ruin

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Chairman Freiman and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on A3861, the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP supports A3861, which would prohibit the reporting of medical debt to credit reporting agencies and ensure that patients are protected from financial ruin just from seeking medical care.

These actions are crucial for the well-being of the state’s families, especially those with lower incomes. Health care researchers have long recognized that poverty and the resulting inaccessibility of health care in and of itself can lead to a greater likelihood for medical emergencies and chronic illnesses because residents with low incomes or who lack insurance do not have access to needed resources and may avoid preventative medical care due to costs and time restrictions.[i] This means that those with the least means to pay for medical emergencies are also the most likely to face them — and with medical emergencies come extremely high bills, requiring money beyond what the individuals and families can afford. This worsens health inequities that we already see in the state; for example, we know that residents of color are twice as likely to have medical debt in collections.[ii]

Even for those with insurance coverage and up-to-date preventive medical care, unexpected medical emergencies happen and affordability remains a critical issue.[iii] People often have to go to the nearest emergency room, regardless of their coverage, and face bills of thousands of dollars simply because they were in an accident or woke up one morning with a failing organ.

It is important to note that this bill does not necessarily address the root issue of high costs in our health care system nor does it eliminate medical debt altogether. However, this will at least provide families with the knowledge that medical debt will not pervade their lives and create obstacles to other basic necessities. This bill is crucial to addressing calamities and the ways that our expensive health care system currently cripples families for life. In prohibiting the reporting of debt to credit reporting agencies and ensuring that patients are protected, we can bring more humanity to our health care system and promise residents that medical debt will not control their future.

We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill with the adoption of the proposed amendments suggested by the groups here today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] U.S. Census Bureau, Most Vulnerable More Likely to Depend on Emergency Rooms for Preventable Care, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/who-makes-more-preventable-visits-to-emergency-rooms.html

[ii] Urban Institute, Debt in America. https://apps.urban.org/features/debt-interactive-map/?type=medical&variable=medcoll&state=34.

[iii] Commonwealth Fund, The Cost of Not Getting Care: Income Disparities in the Affordability of Health Services Across High-Income Countries, 2023. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2023/nov/cost-not-getting-care-income-disparities-affordability-health

Lengthy Sentences Do Not Serve as Deterrents, Address Root Causes, or Reduce Crime

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairman Stack and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel, a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

First, I want to acknowledge that the work you do is challenging. You are pulled in different directions by people who feel passionately about these issues, and I believe that you are all trying to do what you feel is right. When I was younger, I had a mentor tell me, “doing the right thing is easy. It is knowing what the right thing is that is the hard part.” So, today I will share some information to help determine the right thing.

As written, S3006 will essentially turn trespassing into 2nd degree burglary subject to NERA. What that means is, this legislature is asking that someone who enters any place with an accommodation for sleeping without permission, whether or not the place is empty, be sent to prison for 5 to 10 years, have to serve at least 85% of their sentence before they are even eligible for parole, and have an additional mandatory period of supervision tacked on. Make no mistake, this will create a new mandatory minimum, even if those words do not appear in the bill. It can also make that person essentially ineligible for other programming, such as diversion programs for juveniles or recovery court for individuals who use drugs.

Research shows that property crime like burglary is tied to economic circumstances. So, this bill will target some of the most vulnerable New Jerseyans, such as unhoused people, and make them ineligible for services that might actually reduce the chances for reoffense. Thus, this bill will have unintended consequences and increase the chances that people reoffend by making support services — the kind that actually address root causes of crime — out of reach. This bill will also adversely affect juveniles, because a 2nd degree NERA offense makes it more likely that they are tried in an adult court even if their record is clean.

Lengthy sentences do not serve as deterrents or address root causes, and they do not reduce crime. In fact, research has shown that increased and continuous exposure to the penal system increases recidivism and exacerbates the circumstances that lead to criminal activity in the first place, things like, employment and educational opportunities, economic stability, relationships with community members and family – all of these things are ripped away from people when they are sent to prison. In this case, ripped away from someone who is likely vulnerable, nonviolent, or unhoused for what could be decade.

Bills like this are how we got to where we are today, known across the world as the incarceration nation. Please do the right thing and vote no on this bill.

Thank you and happy to take any questions.

Dedicating Corporate Transit Fee Revenue to NJ Transit Makes Fiscal and Policy Sense

Posted on by Peter Chen

The Corporate Transit Fee is a critical investment for our state — making Big Business pay back some of its record profits in support of the New Jersey infrastructure that generated those profits in the first place.

But it also represents an important bulwark against the tide of eroding corporate taxes that have affected both federal and state governments. An increasingly concentrated group of the most profitable corporations now soak up an enormous percentage of the world’s economic production, with tax cuts and loopholes for corporations to reduce already-shrinking tax liability. If states are unable to pull back wealth from these sophisticated corporate actors, they will find themselves with less revenue to fund critical investments like schools, public health, and infrastructure, while placing more burden on in-state residents and institutions.

As NJPP noted in its recent report, this fee would affect less than 1% of New Jersey business tax filers, almost all of whom are located out of state. Rather than harming New Jersey businesses, this would help level the playing field between small and midsize businesses and corporate behemoths, ensuring that a business collecting $100,000 in profits does not pay the same tax rate as a business collecting $100,000,000.

The prior corporate surtax allowed New Jersey’s tax collections to grow proportionally with the record profits generated by businesses post-2020, while other states lagged behind. The Corporate Transit Fee will hopefully allow this trend to continue.

Dedicating the fee to NJ Transit makes both fiscal and policy sense. As you are well aware, NJ Transit faces an $850 million budget deficit starting in fiscal year 2026. Without the CTF, the trains and buses that form the backbone of New Jersey’s economic success would face immediate cutbacks and cancellations, with shuttered stations and riders left stranded. The most profitable businesses should pay their fair share for infrastructure that helps them generate their profits. NJ Transit needs sustainable dedicated funding to preserve its operations for years to come.

Social Equity Excise Fee Revenue Should Support Those Harmed Most by Cannabis Prohibition

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Houenou, Vice-Chairman Delgado, and Commissioners of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC). Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

I’m Marleina Ubel, a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to championing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

The Social Equity Excise Fee (SEEF) is more than just a financial measure; it’s a vital step towards rectifying the injustices inflicted by the War on Drugs. We’ve seen families torn apart, economic opportunities stifled, and communities of color disproportionately affected by draconian drug policies. The revenue generated by this fee should, under no circumstances, be given to law enforcement agencies, which were the very entities that caused the most harm enforcing cannabis prohibition. Law enforcement already receives the lion’s share of public safety funding even though other social service professions, such as public and mental health professionals, school counselors, and social workers are just as important to public safety.

SEEF revenue must be distributed back not just to municipal governments, but to promoting stronger, safer, and more resilient communities, recognizing substance use as a matter of public health. Crucially, those directly impacted by the War on Drugs must have a voice in how these funds are utilized. We must ensure more legitimate stakeholding.

NJPP advocates for a diverse range of uses for SEEF revenue, from community programs to harm reduction services, acknowledging the successes of states like Colorado, where similar funds have bolstered education, mental health services, and homelessness prevention.

I want to specifically highlight harm reduction services because although the budget is expected to generously fund the programming in Fiscal Year 2025, those funds are a result of the opioid settlement and to maintain this level of funding in the future, the state will need a sustainable revenue stream.

Finally, given the importance of this fee, the CRC should move to increase it — setting SEEF at the maximum allowed by statute, which would still keep New Jersey among some of the lowest taxes on cannabis in the country. However, let’s be clear: equitable distribution is paramount. Municipalities must prioritize racial justice and reparations for those most affected by the War on Drugs. Anything less would betray the very essence of the SEEF’s purpose.

Thank you for your attention.

The Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Ensures Government Transparency and Accountability

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good Morning Chair Karabinchak and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

The bill as currently drafted would gut the public’s access to records that are generated by public dollars by public employees. Rather than support the public’s access, this bill instead erects more obstacles to public access and removes protections that make it possible to combat erroneous denials.

Government records are generated by and for the public. To ensure transparency and accountability for government activity, the public can and should be able to access those records. The entire purpose of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) is to expand and improve public access.

As a research organization, NJPP frequently puts together its reports using public data that it requests from public agencies. Public health data, budget data, and meeting minutes are critical components of understanding how government priorities are set. And as agencies put less and less information on public websites, OPRA has become one of the only ways to obtain this information. As an example, NJPP had to use OPRA to request documents such as:

  • Preschool attendance data
  • NJ Transit budgets and meeting minutes
  • Local law enforcement budgets

 

Already many requests are subject to unexplained delays and erroneous denials. This bill would create even more red tape for requestors and limit access to specialized researchers or moneyed special interests, rather than members of the general public.

Below are just a selection of the different ways in which this bill would harm transparency and the right of the public to understand what it is that government officials and employees are doing with public money and public trust, but at this juncture, I simply urge the committee to vote NO on this bill. No set of amendments can improve what is a tear-down of the entire concept of open records.

Almost every provision in the bill harms public transparency:

  • Expands exemptions:
    • Exempts whole categories of public records: Because of obscure data-keeping policies, members of the public frequently cannot request data because they don’t know what data exists. What email communication occurred, when calls took place, what date a PDF was created – these are critical data for understanding how government decisions are made, especially as more records become electronic.
    • Creates catch-all exemption for anything that may or might lead to disclosure of personal information or harassment: Placing new exemptions for information that “might reasonably lead” to disclosure of personal information and information that the agency “has reason to believe . . . may result in harassment, unwanted solicitation, identity theft, or opportunities for other criminal acts” allows enormous discretion to public agencies to deny requests behind the veneer of protecting the public. This exception is wide enough that it can be used for a denial of almost any information even tangentially related to a specific person or group of people.
    • Creates unbalanced “task force” to study police records: Though special circumstances do often apply to law enforcement records, they are still government records preserved on behalf of the public. Given the strong public interest in accountable policing, any task force should have a clear charge focused on that accountability and its composition should reflect that goal.
  • Increases incentives for non-compliance/denial:
    • Makes fee-shifting discretionary rather than mandatory: The opaque and slow Government Records Council process means that the only effective way to resolve OPRA denial complaints is through the courts. Because these cases do not frequently result in money damages, mandatory fee-shifting is the only incentive for lawyers to take on these cases for citizens.
    • Establishes personal immunity for willful violations: As has been seen in other areas of public employee misconduct, the public ends up paying the bill for the costs of violations and litigation. Eliminating personal immunity for willful violations of OPRA will create more incentive not to comply, because the agency, not the custodian, will be on the hook.
  • Expands red tape
    • Requires correspondence to be on a “specific subject matter” and “discrete and limited time period” from a specific person: Say that a member of the public is interested in finding out about why a municipality made a decision to sell a parcel. The member requests emails pertaining to the sale of the parcel, but does not necessarily know when those emails would have been sent, or even the identity of the relevant employees who made the decision.
    • Allows data to be provided in any format at the discretion of the custodian, even if highly inconvenient: Many records remain only accessible in hard copy. This format is highly inconvenient especially when records are voluminous. Providing records in the requested format when possible aids public access.
    • Extends time period for response from 7 to 14 days “as appropriate”: The bill de facto eliminates seven-day requirements by adding “14 days as appropriate” in a variety of circumstances. No doubt custodians will find it appropriate to use the 14 days rather than seven.
    • Extends time period to review for Daniel’s Law compliance: A perfectly reasonable concern for compliance with state confidentiality law should not necessarily require a 14-day review period to buy additional delays in compliance.
    • Extends time period based on when a request is “received” rather than sent: This creates an incentive to ignore requests or not to open them in a timely manner.
    • Mandates use of the OPRA request form: This simply provides another way to deny an otherwise-legitimate request for not going through the proper portal, especially when many state residents still lack internet access or a vehicle.
    • Limits “commercial” requests: The definition of “commercial” is so broad that it likely includes legitimate purposes. A wide range of businesses use public records. A bill targeting dubious or predatory commercial use requires much more tailoring to ensure that members of the public are not excluded from access.

 

As the members of this committee can no doubt see, this bill represents a wholesale rewriting of the OPRA statute to hide more and more government business behind closed doors. Members of all political parties and backgrounds should see the risks of hiding accountability for government activity.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»