• Alaska 1332 Waiver - Economic Analysis

      Bibler, Andrew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-12-23)
      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.
    • 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.
    • Dual language Education And Student Achievement

      Bibler, Andrew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-02-01)
      Dual language classrooms provide English language learners (ELLs) an opportunity to receive instruction in their native language in hopes of easing the transition to English fluency, and provide an opportunity for native English speakers to receive instruction in a second language. For ELLs, learning in their native language could improve achievement by helping them build a stronger foundation in core subjects, but could also have a negative impact through delayed growth in English skills. For native English speakers, communication barriers could hurt achievement, but many argue that mental stimulation from speaking two languages leads to greater cognitive growth. Empirical testing for the e↵ect of dual language education on academic achievement is necessary to inform the debate on the practice of dual language education, and to inform policymakers and practitioners on practices for assimilating students with non-English dominant languages. I examine dual language education and student achievement using school choice lotteries from Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District, finding local average treatment e↵ects on math and reading exam scores of more than 0.06 standard deviations per year for participants who were eligible for English second language (ESL) services or designated limited English proficient (LEP). There is also some evidence that attending a dual language school led to a lower probability of having limited English proficient status starting in third grade. For applicants who were not eligible for ESL services or designated as LEP, attending a dual language school resulted in higher end of grade exam scores of about 0.09 and 0.05 standard deviations per year in math and reading, respectively.
    • Household Composition and Gender Differences in Parental Time Investments

      Bibler, Andrew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-04-04)
      Recent research documents a female advantage in several important long-term outcomes among children raised in single-parent households, and highlights the importance of non-cognitive skills for explaining these gaps. Understanding the source of differences in non-cognitive skills is complicated due to the presence of many interrelated and often unobservable inputs. One potential explanation for such gaps is that boys and girls receive different levels of inputs in single-parent versus two-parent households. This paper provides empirical evidence that input levels change differentially by gender across household structures and hence may facilitate gender gaps in noncognitive skills. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and accompanying Child Development Supplement, I estimate gender differences in parental time investments, defined as the amount of time parents spend participating in activities with the child, around changes in household composition. I find that, although both boys and girls experience reductions in parental time investments following a change from a two-parent to single-mother household, boys experience a larger reduction than girls. The largest difference is found in fathers’ time investments on weekdays, for which boys lose an additional 24 minutes per day (35% of average paternal weekday investments). Moreover, there is little to no evidence that single mothers compensate for the loss by increasing time investments to boys relative to girls.
    • Public and Private Sector Earnings in Alaska

      Bibler, Andrew; Guettabi, Mouhcine (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-12-01)
      We compare earnings in the Alaska public and private sector labor markets from 2001 -2016. Public sector laborers are older and more likely to be female, suggesting that taking these differences into consideration will be important in our comparisons. We also focus on the public-private sector earnings gaps for men and women separately, as the magnitude and even direction of the gap depends on this distinction. We go about this in three ways: unconditional comparisons, conditional earnings gaps, and comparing the earnings and growth of individuals who remain with the same employer. Below are the main findings: • The unconditional average public-private earnings gaps for men and women are of opposing signs (see Table 1). – Men in the public sector earn about $2,129 less in quarterly wages than men in the private sector, on average. – Women in the public sector earn about $498 more in quarterly wages than women in the private sector, on average. • On average, across all occupations, men and women have higher initial earnings in the private sector at the beginning of a job spell. – For men, the difference is $3113 in quarterly earnings. – For women, the difference is $760 in quarterly earnings. • Among workers who remain with the same employer, earnings growth is 1% and 2% higher in the public sector for men and women, respectively. • For men, despite the faster growth, they don’t catch up to the earnings of private sector employees within 10 years of tenure in most occupations (See Tables 9 and 11, and Figure 12). 1 • Women in the public sector earn more than their private sector counterparts within a few years of tenure, on average. • There is substantial heterogeneity in the earnings gap across occupations (See Tables 10 and 12, and Figure 13).