Category: Testimony

Federal Medicaid Reductions Would Have Disastrous Effects on New Jersey’s Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Any reduction in federal Medicaid spending directly harms New Jersey’s budget and its residents. As a state-federal partnership, Medicaid depends on reliable and sustainable federal funding to balance state funds. Regardless of the specific method that Medicaid spending is cut, the end result is the same: less money for the state and costs pushed from the federal budget onto state budgets.

A $2 billion cut, no matter how you slice it

Analysis from national health care researchers estimates that the proposed cuts in the federal Medicaid budget would mean a $2 billion annual cut in New Jersey’s Medicaid budget. (See Appendix A). This corresponds with analysis by New Jersey’s Department of Human Services putting a cost of a minimum of $2 billion on proposed federal changes. (See Appendix B)

By way of comparison the entire proposed state appropriation for Medicaid is $5.7 billion for FY 2026.[i] Another way of contextualizing the numbers – the estimated cuts are the equivalent to the cost of 87% of kids enrolled in Medicaid. (See Appendix A)

I will leave to other experts to discuss the mechanics of particular proposals, whether a per capita cap, a change in federal reimbursement rate, or onerous work requirements. But regardless of the method, the state budget will face a multi-billion dollar hole with no solution.

A trickle-down budget disaster for states, localities, and health care providers

The state budget would take the immediate cut from whichever federal cuts are realized. Some of that effect may be spread out over multiple years but one way or another, the money will stop showing up in the state’s revenues.

But the ripple effects of these cuts would eat even further into the state’s budget.

  • If the state chooses to fill in the federal gaps with its own funding, it would have to generate new revenues to do so at a time when the budget is already running deficits.
  • If people become disenrolled from Medicaid, they will likely incur costs elsewhere in the health care system, whether in hospital charity care or other uninsured settings.
  • Health care providers depend on Medicaid payments, as detailed in the NJ DHS analysis (See Appendix B), and funding cuts would affect their revenues as well.

 

Limited solutions

Reducing costs for Medicaid at the state level would be difficult for a program that already runs at very low cost compared to the private insurance market. Medicaid costs less to insure an enrollee than the private market and spending has grown more slowly than the private market.[ii]

  • Already-low reimbursement rates: New Jersey already has comparatively low reimbursement rates for Medicaid,[iii] limiting options for provider availability if rates are capped or reduced.
  • Already-low overhead costs: Overhead costs for Medicaid are already low – around 4.4% for New Jersey.[iv]
  • Increased administrative costs of proposed changes: Creating a state system for work requirements or other potentially onerous federal mandates would increase, not decrease, those administrative costs.

One additional note of caution: recessions typically see an increase in demand for Medicaid, as people become unemployed or underemployed.[v] If economic uncertainty produces a recession, this would further increase the state budgetary cost of reduced federal Medicaid spending. In the 2001, 2008, and 2020 recessions, the federal government increased Medicaid reimbursement rates, but that may be unlikely this time around.

The takeaway: A Medicaid cut by any name would impose huge costs on the state budget, with few solutions and devastating effects on New Jerseyans’ health.

End Notes

[i] State of New Jersey, The Governor’s FY 2026 Budget: Detailed Budget (2025), p. D-209.

[ii] Hannah Katch et al., Frequently Asked Questions about Medicaid, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Nov. 22, 2019), https://www.cbpp.org/research/correcting-seven-myths-about-medicaid

[iii] New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, Primary Care in New Jersey: Findings and Recommendations to Support Advoanced Primary Care (January 2024) https://www.njhcqi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Primary-Care-Report_2024_v11.pdf.

[iv] Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), MACStats: Medicaid and CHIP Data Book (December 2024), p. 46 exh. 16, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EXHIBIT-16.-Medicaid-Spending-by-State-Category-and-Source-of-Funds-FY-2023.pdf.

[v] Katherine Young et al., Medicaid Spending Growth in the Great Recession and Its Aftermath, FY 2007-2012, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (July 2014), pp. 5-6, https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/8309-03-medicaid-spending-growth-in-the-great-recession-and-its-aftermath-fy-2007-2012.pdf

Data Centers Should Bring Their Own Clean Energy to New Jersey

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of A5564, which requires AI data centers to plan for their energy usage and to derive all electricity from clean energy sources.

At a time when affordability is out of reach for so many families, I appreciate the state taking actions to address the cause of the upcoming utility bill increases. Most of us already know that the main driver of these increases is a combination of PJM’s slow interconnection process which is bottlenecking supply, and a surge in projected demand. But what some of you may not know is that 70 percent of that increase in demand is due to AI data centers.[i] It is concerning that residential ratepayers like you and I are now paying the cost for AI data centers, and it’s also important all the PJM states work together to craft policies like this one to prevent this problem in the future.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2022 New Jersey consumed over six times as much energy as we produced.[ii] We know as a state we are a net importer of energy, and we may always be. We need proactive planning, like what’s proposed in this bill, to reduce in-state demand and increase supply, which will ultimately protect ratepayers.

Another note about AI data centers is that they are not necessarily the economic boon some may think they are. Data centers, once constructed, need very few workers in very large spaces. One data center CEO operator, John Johnson of Patmos Hosting, even said, “Data centers have rightly earned a dismal reputation of creating the lowest number of jobs per square foot in their facilities.”[iii] This means they will not bring lasting economic benefits to our communities.

I want to end by pointing out that adding newer, safer, and more reliable sources of energy to our grid will increase reliability and drive down costs. Currently less than 4 percent of the energy we generate as a state comes from renewables–the majority of the rest comes from nuclear and natural gas.[iv] As a comparison, the national average for renewables is over 21 percent.[v] We all agree we need more energy, and we need to diversify our energy portfolio with reliable sources like solar and wind paired with battery storage.

Data centers are driving up prices for consumers, draining our energy grid, and may not bring significant long-term economic benefits to our communities. But if they do want to come to our state, it makes sense to ask them to bring additional energy sources, and those sources may as well be clean and reliable. This is one way to protect ratepayers from higher costs. Thank you.

End Notes

[i] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.6.

[ii] NJPP analysis of New Jersey State Profile Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[iii] Dotan, Tom. “The AI Data-Center Boom Is a Job-Creation Bust.” Wall Street Journal. Feb. 25, 2025.

[iv] See “Utility-Scale Net Electricity Generation” at New Jersey State Profile Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[v] Ibid.

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Should Investigate PJM Pricing

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of AJR216, which directs BPU to investigate PJM’s Reliability Pricing Model, directs State to promote affordable energy practices, and urges PJM to implement certain reforms.

Having affordable and reliable energy available for New Jersey residents and businesses is critical, but PJM is hindering our ability to deliver it. The regional RTO is frankly stuck in the past, and has been sitting on its hands while other RTOs are adapting to a changing energy landscape. We also know that PJM tends to overestimate demand load forecasts and did not consider all energy resources in the last capacity auction.[1] This, combined with the shortfall of supply due to its antiquated interconnection process, drives up costs for consumers. Additionally, PJM is giving an unfair advantage to gas power plant proposals, which are increasingly unreliable under extreme weather, instead of diversifying our energy portfolio with new sources of energy, like solar and wind paired with battery storage.[2] They can and should do better, and requiring BPU to investigate these practices is a step in the right direction.

New Jersey’s utility rates are already 20 percent higher than the national average, and these upcoming increases will only exacerbate that.[3] Additionally, LIHEAP, the federal program that helps residents save hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills, is on the chopping block, putting hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans at risk of not being able to pay their bills.[4]

These increases in electricity rates are not going anywhere. A recent report from Evergreen Collaborative found that if PJM continues business as usual, our region could see up to 60 percent increases in our utility bills.[5] But if they implement certain reforms, and if states enact policies to increase energy supply, New Jersey ratepayers could see a reduction in their bills, averaging over $400 a year.[6] Additionally, because these reforms would remove barriers to building more clean energy in-state, we will see a net increase of 23,000 jobs annually.[7] Those are good union jobs building and maintaining solar energy, wind energy, battery storage, and its associated infrastructure.

The report also recommends that states consider permitting and siting reform to speed up project development, including establishing deadlines for clean energy and transmission permit consideration. Uncertainty is a project-killer, and the faster we can go from application to interconnection, the less uncertainty there is, and the more new energy resources we can add to our grid. This, combined with PJM reforms, will help drive down costs for customers and build a more resilient grid. Thank you for your consideration.

End Note

[1] Wilson, J.F. What’s With the PJM Load Forecast??. Wilson Energy Economics. Oct. 22, 2024. See figure 3, p. 2.

See PJM’s letter on Reliability Must Run (RMR) resources: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/about-pjm/who-we-are/public-disclosures/2024/20240919-pjm-board-response-consumer-advocates-letter-re-urgent-reforms-pjm-capacity-market-re-reliability-must-run-units.ashx

[2] Azhar, A. Clean Energy Industry Questions a New PJM Proposal That Could Move Fossil Fuel Projects to the Front of the Interconnection Queue. Inside Climate News. Dec. 8, 2024.

Gas Malfunction. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2024.

[3] NJPP analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration data of residential prices.

[4] Chen, P. A LI“HEAP” of Trouble: Slashing Federal Utility Assistance Will Hurt New Jersey Seniors, Families, and Working-Class Households. New Jersey Policy Perspective. (2025).

[5] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.1

[6] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.5.

[7] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.22.

End the Unjust Subminimum Wage for Tipped Workers

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of A-5433, which phases out subminimum wages for tipped workers. Eliminating the tipped minimum wage will help to alleviate poverty, reduce racial and gender pay disparities, and reduce wage violations in industries prone to exploitation. New Jersey tipped workers have a wage of $5.62 an hour – an appallingly low number in a state with a high cost of living.

A-5433 will reduce employee abuse and wage theft.

  • Tipped workers are subject to high rates of wage theft. According to Rutgers’ research from 2021, restaurants and bars had the highest rate of minimum wage violations outside of private households.
  • With the current subminimum tipped wage system, workers bear the burden of tracking their hours and tips to ensure they are fairly compensated, followed by filing complaints to claw back the wages they rightly earned. (This is confusing for businesses as well!)

 

A-5433 will reduce poverty for tipped workers.

  • Tipped workers have historically received lower total wages than their non-tipped peers and are more likely to live in poverty.
  • They are also disproportionately women and people of color, whose low wages deepen the racial and gender pay gap.
  • Subminimum wages are associated with dramatically higher poverty for tipped workers.

 

A-5433 will allow workers and tipped industries to thrive. 

  • States with one fair wage for tipped workers and untipped workers alike have shown higher growth in restaurants and restaurant employment than states with lower tipped wages.
  • States heavily reliant on food service and hospitality (Nevada, Hawaii, California) have adopted one fair wage and continued to see restaurant growth.
  • Higher base wages will not prevent workers from receiving tips. Gratuities are by definition gratuitous, and consumers can continue to provide tips for service.

 

Phasing out the subminimum tipped wage will be a win for workers and businesses alike.

Legislature Must Raise Revenue, Support Working Families in FY 2026 Budget

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good Morning, Chair Pintor Marin and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

The governor’s proposed budget takes important steps toward fiscal stability in the long term, particularly by raising additional revenue. Although NJPP would prefer more revenue measures targeting high-wealth individuals and large corporations that profit from our state, it’s clear that additional revenue is needed, especially as community grant programs and affordability initiatives such as the Child Tax Credit remain flat-funded or face cuts. To ensure New Jersey remains an affordable place for all residents to raise a family and thrive, the state budget must include more revenue.

The need for revenue and responsible budgeting becomes even more urgent in light of potential federal cuts. The legislature and governor have made clear that even minor federal reductions could have devastating effects on New Jersey’s state budget and on New Jerseyans who depend on federal funds for health insurance, food assistance, and affordable housing. The proposed surplus would only sustain the state for 39 days in the event of an economic downturn or federal cuts. 

Now, at a time when working families are struggling with affordability, the budget offers little additional aid to help them make ends meet, including:

  • No increase in Child Tax Credit or Earned Income Tax Credit benefits;
  • No increase in Work First New Jersey cash assistance for low-income households;
  • No increase in rental assistance, child care assistance, or food assistance.

 

Instead, the budget includes cuts to key programs such as community colleges, legal services, and lead paint remediation, while diverting funds from long-term investments like the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Clean Energy Fund.

New Jersey must not follow the federal trend of cutting benefits and programs for working- and middle-class households while maintaining tax breaks for wealthy households and big corporations. Rather, the state should pursue progressive revenues policies that ensure those with the most to contribute their fair share, as outlined in NJPP’s 2024 report Fair and Square: Changing New Jersey’s Tax Code to Promote Equity and Fiscal Responsibility.

These measures include:

  • Adopting the governor’s proposal to increase the assessment on property sales over $1 million
  • Adding income tax brackets for very high earners above $2 million, $5 million, and $10 million
  • Requiring multinational corporations to disclose their profits from foreign tax havens
  • Increasing tax enforcement to improve compliance with existing tax laws

 

By ensuring that the wealthy contribute more equitably, the state can expand its ability to help working New Jerseyans afford the cost of living in the state and build the investments in school construction, public transit infrastructure, and climate resiliency that the state needs for a brighter future.

One final note on future fiscal planning: The Fiscal Year 2027 budget will face significant constraints due to the expansion of the Stay NJ program, which is slated for funding this year despite falling short of the surplus targets outlined in the legislation. While the state has less money to spend and potential federal cuts looming, the program is set to distribute more than $500 million in Fiscal Year 2026, disproportionately benefiting high-income, wealthy homeowners. These payments partially rely on prior years’ contributions, but Fiscal Year 2027 will have no such cushion — doubling the cost to more than $1 billion and further deepening the deficit.

The state budget can and should reflect a commitment for shared prosperity, where revenue generated by working New Jerseyans supports schools, transportation, and communities that make the state strong. That requires raising additional revenues from the state’s wealthy and reducing cuts to programs that promote affordable and opportunity for all.

New Jersey Department of Human Services Can Secure Support for Residents Ahead of Uncertain Federal Policy Landscape

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon, Commissioner and DHS team. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the FY 2026 budget for the Department of Human Services. 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.

With a looming uncertain federal policy landscape, the state’s Department of Human Services provides a critical channel for support for individuals and families. Now more than ever is a time for the state to cement its commitment to that support and ensure that all Garden State families are protected, regardless of possible federal changes. To do this, the Department should prioritize policies that will help to lessen and eliminate daily uncertainty that many working families, immigrants, and low-income residents currently face and may be threatened with in coming years.

In order to provide families with unwavering support, here are five priorities for the Department to consider for next fiscal year.

1. Protect Cover All Kids

Possible federal cuts to programs like Medicaid mean that the state needs to fully commit to keeping all children covered with quality, affordable health insurance through the Cover All Kids program. The Department already uses state funds to cover kids enrolled through the program’s expansion to all children regardless of immigration status, and maintaining that guarantee is crucial. Keeping that connection with immigrant communities at such a fraught time will also require improved and increased outreach efforts, as well as stronger privacy protections. Additionally, if federal reductions cut funding that helps to cover those kids who were already eligible with federal matching, the state must increase its own funding to ensure that no kids become uninsured even if the state must shift funds to fill new gaps.

 

NJPP urges DHS to ensure that the expansion remains fully funded in FY 2026, that outreach efforts are strengthened, and that privacy considerations are fully protected. This means making sure that state funds continue to cover the over 42,000 newly eligible, enrolled children, and accommodating any further increases in that number (approximately $156 million). It also means increasing funding for outreach efforts, as well as funding any improvements to the privacy protections needed to safely maintain the enrollment of immigrant children.

2. Expand Affordable Health Insurance Options

In addition to possible cuts to programs like Medicaid, other looming possibilities with federal transitions are threats to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), its protections, and its affordable options for low- to middle-income families. To ensure that the progress toward universal coverage over the past decade is not lost, the state must step up to safeguard the ACA’s advancements and lead in providing further coverage options.

By investing in affordable and quality health insurance options, the state can limit the financial impact of federal cuts to services and preserve public health for the Garden State. To do this, NJPP encourages DHS to set the budget so that it can (1) build the final bridges for uninsured children by funding a buy-in option for the children who are not income-eligible for NJ FamilyCare (NJFC) and yet do not qualify for GetCovered NJ coverage due to immigration status; and (2) establish and fund a public option open to all residents, regardless of immigration status or age.

3. Meet Economic Needs with Reforms to Anti-Poverty Programs

Despite the intense coverage on economic issues during and after the federal election, the reality is that the long-running anti-poverty programs funded by the federal government and states remain woefully neglected. Even with low-income residents facing daily economic insecurity, the main programs helping to lift families out of deep poverty — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and, in New Jersey, the full collection of programs under the umbrella of Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) — remain outdated and subject to the punitive stereotypes of 1990s welfare reform. Federal changes may also threaten the existence of these programs. NJPP encourages the Department to consider how to protect the WFNJ programs from federal cuts and make them work for the state’s poorest families.

By investing at least $46 million, the Department can begin the process of gradually increasing the WFNJ monthly grant amount to at least 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) over the next three years, starting with a baseline increase to 34% of the FPL in the first year. Maintaining current Emergency Assistance funding is also crucial. Finally, additional funds can help to improve off-ramps, reduce work hour requirements to better meet families’ realities, eliminate barriers for immigrants, and ensure that children and parents are lifted out of deep poverty.

4. Defend, Shield, and Support New Jersey’s Immigrant Communities

Potential federal policy changes threaten the safety and security of New Jersey’s diverse immigrant communities. More urgently than ever, the state needs to step up to protect Garden State immigrant families, providing them the empathy and enthusiasm that all families who call the state home are afforded.

To adequately respond to and prepare for possible federal actions, the Department should ensure that funding is available to codify the Office of New Americans and to support and strengthen the continuation of services like the Deportation Detention Defense Initiative, legal services for unaccompanied minors, and fee waivers and assistance for refugees and asylum seekers. Additionally, any further funding needed to improve language access across all programs will be a vital commitment at a time when communication will become key to protection.

5. Support Quality Child Care Options in the Face of Increased Demand

As offices push for employees to return to commuting and in-person only setups, more and more families are having to make tough decisions about how to best care for their children during the work day. Having affordable, quality child care options that fit into a working family’s budget and meet the true cost of child care helps to build economic security and guarantee a more stable future for families and the state. At the same time, a quality child care system provides wages that fairly value the importance of child care providers’ work and ensures that they are able to cover their living expenses.

NJPP urges the Department to take action to make sure that child care wages keep up with demand. Additionally, DHS should adjust child care subsidy rates to meet the needs of workers and families.

In order to continue to fund all of these vital services, NJPP urges the administration to consider a range of revenue raisers that can be found in our latest report.[1] 

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

End Notes

[1] New Jersey Policy Perspective, Fair and Square: Changing New Jersey’s Tax Code to Promote Equity and Fiscal Responsibility, 2024. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/fair-and-square-changing-new-jerseys-tax-code-to-promote-equity-and-fiscal-responsibility/

New Jersey’s Ballot Design Should Prioritize Transparency, Fairness, and Accessibility

Posted on by Peter Chen

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a statewide nonpartisan nonprofit think tank focused on economic, social and racial justice, has long advocated for fair ballots in the state, including multiple reports on the harmful influence of the “county line” on primary election choices.

I broadly ask you to build a ballot that applies best practices and does not allow for any visual advantage, either in terms of order, position, highlighting, font, or other visual cues.

1. Any ballot design process must include as much of the public as possible.

When a committee focused on ballot design sets last-minute meeting times at difficult times for members of the public to attend, the committee is leaving out members of the public, particularly lower-information voters, whose understanding of the ballot is most important for the committee to hear. It is impossible to design effective ballots without clear public feedback on what confusion and concerns they have about ballot design.

NJPP urges more notice, more convenient meeting times, and more public feedback, not less.

2. New Jersey should move towards clean, office-block ballots with minimal visual cues that give an advantage to any candidate over any other.

New Jersey should follow the principles of the opinion in the Hanlon case, as well as best practices of national ballot design experts. The vast majority of states use an office-block design with minimal visual cues to indicate endorsement or incumbency.

Allowing any highlighting, asterisks, endorsements, placement, bracketing, incumbency markings, or other visual cues that signal that one candidate is special over any other creates a risk of unfair balloting. Randomized electronic draws can prevent placement-order advantages.

3. There is more to good ballot design than office-block balloting; this committee should ensure the state’s ballot reflects other best practices.

If New Jersey means to revamp its ballot design to provide for fairness and reduce confusion among voters, it should adhere to ballot design best practices advanced by civic engagement experts. As an example, New Jersey counties frequently use all-caps to indicate candidate names and as emphasis throughout the instructions, even though they make word shapes harder to recognize and lead to lower comprehension. Similarly, many New Jersey ballots use centered type, even though left-justified type is more legible. Instructions are often nonstandard and do not include visual cues.

Ballot design should also reflect the diverse array of voters in New Jersey, including voters who are blind, deaf or hard of hearing, or otherwise have a disability; voters with limited English proficiency; voters with low literacy levels; voters who may require assistance in filling out their ballots; etc. User testing should include all of these voter groups.

If the concern of the committee is to reduce confusion by voters, any attempt to redesign New Jersey’s ballots must incorporate these best practices, rather than exclusively focus on the questions of slogans, bracketing, and other indicators that potentially give advantages to one candidate.

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.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»