• 2016 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Cravez, Pamela; Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1/1/2016)
    • 2019 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2/6/2019)
    • Accessing Permanent Fund Earnings to Reduce the Fiscal Gap

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-02-04)
    • Alaska 1332 Waiver- Economic Analysis

      Bibler, Andrew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-12-01)
      The four guardrails that a successful 1332 waiver must meet are as follows: 1. Coverage - There must be at least a comparable number of individuals with coverage under the waiver as would have had coverage without the waiver. 2. Affordability – The waiver should not result in an increase in out-of-pocket spending required of residents to obtain coverage, relative to income. 3. Comprehensiveness – The waiver should not decrease the number of individuals with coverage that meets the essential health benefits (EHB) benchmark. 4. Deficit Neutrality – The waiver should not have any negative impact on the federal deficit. In this report, the first three guardrails are briefly discussed to reaffirm that the actuarial analysis conducted by Oliver Wyman demonstrates that the proposed waiver meets them. The actuarial report from Oliver Wyman projects that the proposed waiver will increase the number of individuals taking up insurance in the individual market, lower average premiums, and have no impact on the comprehensiveness of coverage. The numbers reported in the actuarial analysis are then used to help evaluate the impact that the proposed waiver will have on the federal budget. There are at least four ways in which the waiver will have an important impact on the federal budget, which are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Impact of Proposed Waiver on Budget Direction of Effect APTC Savings + Individual Shared Responsibility Payments - Health Insurance Providers Fee - Federal Exchange User Fees - Overall Impact on Budget + The first and most important impact of the waiver is that it will lead to a reduction in premiums. The reduction in premiums reduces the amount of Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC) that individuals will be eligible for and generates savings of $50 - $100 million per year from 2018 through 2026. There are also three routes through which the waiver will negatively impact the budget by decreasing revenue: individual shared responsibility payments, health insurance providers fees, and federal exchange user fees. Because the waiver will lead to more individuals taking up insurance in the individual market, fewer individuals will owe 2 Attachment 4 Alaska 1332 Waiver - Economic Analysis December 23, 2016 the individual penalty for not having health insurance. The health insurance providers fee depends on the amount of premiums aggregated to the national level. Because the waiver depresses premiums in the Alaska individual insurance market, it will have a secondary negative effect on the total amount collected through the providers fee for years 2019 through 2026. Lower premiums also reduce the amount collected in federal exchange user fees, a 3.5% tax imposed on premiums sold through the Federally Facilitated Marketplace. The aggregate impact on the budget is positive, because the APTC savings outweigh the combined negative impact of the other three channels. Table 2 summarizes the aggregate impact of the four components on the federal budget. Year Final Savings 2016 $0 2017 $0 2018 $48,973,684 2019 $52,260,336 2020 $56,108,411 2021 $61,486,732 2022 $65,612,013 2023 $72,213,851 2024 $77,717,467 2025 $84,814,665 2026 $91,785,506 Table 2: Estimated Savings from Waiver (Before Pass-Through Funding) The overall impact through these four components is about $49 million in savings in 2018. Savings increase in every year thereafter, reaching nearly $92 million in 2026. The savings listed in Table 2 are before the granting of any pass-through funding, so they suggest that as long as pass-through funding is less than or equal to these figures, the proposed waiver will meet the federal deficit neutrality requirement.
    • Alaska Economic Forecast and the Permanent Fund

      Fried, Niel; Goldsmith, Scott; Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1/9/2019)
    • The Alaska Economy And The Challenge Ahead

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 11/1/2015)
    • The Alaska Economy And The Challenge Ahead

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 11/1/2015)
    • Alaska's Economy: How should we interpret the data?

      Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-10-01)
    • Alaska's Economy: Then and Now

      Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-10-11)
    • Alaskan fishing community revenues and the stabilizing role of fishing portfolios

      Knapp, Gunnar; Suresh, Sethi; Reimer, Matthew (Science Direct, 9/1/2014)
    • The Allocation of Time and Risk of Lyme: A Case of Ecosystem Service Income and Substitution Effects

      Berry, Kevin; Bayham, Jude; Meyer, Spencer; Fenichel, Eli (Springer, 4/13/2017)
      Forests are often touted for their ecosystem services, including outdoor recreation. Historically forests were a source of danger and were avoided. Forests continue to be reservoirs for infectious diseases and their vectors�a disservice. We examine how this disservice undermines the potential recreational services by measuring the human response to environmental risk using exogenous variation in the risk of contracting Lyme Disease. We find evidence that individuals substitute away from spending time outdoors when there is greater risk of Lyme Disease infection. On average individuals spent 1.54 fewer minutes per day outdoors at the average, 72 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, confirmed cases of Lyme Disease. We estimate lost outdoor recreation of 9.41 h per year per person in an average county in the Northeastern United States and an aggregate welfare loss on the order $2.8 billion to $5.0 billion per year.
    • Budget basics 1975-2021 - Revenues, Agency Operations, and Capital Spending

      Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 12/16/2019)
    • Budget options: What are the short term effects? (AK Senate Finance and AK House Finance)

      Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3/7/2019)
    • The Economic Case for a Pandemic Fund

      Berry, Kevin (Springer, 5/21/2018)
      The rapid urban spread of Ebola virus in West Africa in 2014 and consequent breakdown of control measures led to a significant economic impact as well as the burden on public health and wellbeing. The US government appropriated $5.4 Billion for FY2015 and WHO proposed a $100 Million emergency fund largely to curtail the threat of future outbreaks. Using epidemiological analyses and economic modeling, we propose that the best use of these and similar funds would be to serve as global insurance against the continued threat of emerging infectious diseases. An effective strategy would involve the initial investment in strengthening mobile and adaptable capacity to deal with the threat and reality of disease emergence, coupled with repeated investment to maintain what is effectively a �national guard� for pandemic prevention and response. This investment would create a capital stock that could also provide access to safe treatment during and between crises in developing countries, lowering risk to developed countries.
    • Economic Effects of Climate Change in Alaska

      Berman, Matthew; Schmidt, Jennifer (American Meteorological Society (AMS), 11/27/2018)
      We summarize the potential nature and scope of economic effects of climate change in Alaska that have already occurred and are likely to become manifest over the next 30-50 years. We classified potential effects discussed in the literature into categories according to climate driver, type of environmental service affected, certainty and timing of the effects, and potential magnitude of economic consequences. We then described the nature of important economic effects, and provided estimates of larger, more certain effects for which data were available. Largest economic effects were associated with costs to prevent damage, relocate, and replace infrastructure threatened by permafrost thaw, sea level rise, and coastal erosion. The costs to infrastructure were offset by a large projected reduction in space heating costs attributable to milder winters. Overall, we estimated that five, relatively certain, large effects that could be readily quantified would impose an annual net cost of $340-$700 million, or 0.6 to 1.3 percent of Alaska GDP. This significant, but relatively modest net economic effect for Alaska as a whole obscures large regional disparities, as rural communities face large projected costs while more southerly urban residents experience net gains.
    • Growing Minds and Strengthening Communities: An Economic Valuation Study of the Anchorage Public Library

      Ralph, Kelsey (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 6/1/2008)
    • In-State Gas Demand Study

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2010-01-01)
    • Migration and Oil Industry Employment of North Slope Alaska Natives

      Marshall, David (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1/1/1993)
    • Migration and Oil Industry Employment of North Slope Alaska Natives

      Marshall, David (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1/1/1993)
    • Observations on Alaska’s Economy and Economic Implications of Alaska’s Fiscal Choices

      Knapp, Gunnar (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-03-30)