December 11, 2014

What Is the Right Level of Regulation in Public Education?

Back in September the Show-Me Institute released my paper, “Decentralization Through Centralization,” in which I examined the development of the nation’s first all-charter school district in New Orleans. Though a mouthful, the title was my way of highlighting the tension that exists in the decentralized New Orleans system, which has been created with greater centralized control. In the paper, my co-authors and I highlight several potential pitfalls that might occur because of the power vested in a centralized entity. This week, Reason released a video highlighting another potential pitfall of the New Orleans Recovery School District model—regulatory creep.

As Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, notes in the video:

People like autonomy in the abstract, but they get real nervous about it. If any one of a hundred or a thousand schools does something goofy, there’s always a natural temptation to say, “Well, we’re for autonomy, but let’s have a rule that doesn’t let you do X.”

Over time, Hess suggests that these regulations mount. If not checked, the decentralized charter market could become a bureaucratic morass. So what is the right level of regulation? And is it possible for a decentralized school system to resist what Neerav Kingsland, former CEO of New Schools for New Orleans, calls “death by a thousand regulatory cuts”?

If you have seven minutes, you should check out the video.

December 2, 2014

Highway Funding in Missouri: The Fuel Tax Option

The failure of Amendment 7, the proposed transportation sales tax, in August has left the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) in a financial bind. In the next few years, the department will no longer have the funds necessary to maintain the quality of the state highway system, much less improve it.

Former proponents of Amendment 7 claim that sales taxes are the best solution for MoDOT’s problems because they are the most politically feasible method of raising large amounts of money. Raising the state gasoline tax (currently 17 cents per gallon)—MoDOT’s principle revenue stream, they say—is not good policy because it is a declining source of funds and it does not poll well. But as we have shown before, fuel consumption has been declining very slowly, and it actually increased in the last year. The erosion in the gas tax’s purchasing power is mostly the result of inflation; Missouri last increased its fuel taxes in 1996, since which time prices have increased an average of 34 percent.

Far from being politically unfeasible, raising the gas tax is actually the simplest method for the state legislature to raise more money for MoDOT. That is because the provision that forces tax increases to go to the voters, the Hancock Amendment, has exceptions for small increases of existing revenue streams. Under the amendment, the legislature can increase revenue in any given year as long as new revenue does not exceed $106 million ($50 million in 1980 indexed to personal income growth) or 1 percent of state revenue looking back two years ($84.2 million for last year), whichever is lower.

Using 1 percent of previous state revenue as a cap, the legislature can collect around an additional $84 million in fuel taxes next year. Missouri currently generates about $29 million per cent from fuel taxes, meaning the state could raise fuel taxes by more than two cents without triggering Hancock requirements. Or, if Missouri followed the example of the federal government and many other states in charging diesel at a higher rate than regular gasoline, the state could raise the diesel fuel tax rate by five cents and the regular fuel tax by one cent and remain under the cap. That would generate an addition $78 million for MoDOT next year.

What’s more, because state revenue has been growing and per-cent fuel receipts have been declining recently, the state legislature could raise the fuel tax in successive years, which could give MoDOT the needed funds to maintain and make necessary improvements to state highways. In fact, this is precisely how Missouri last increased its fuel taxes in the 1990s.

Fuel taxes, as indirect user fees, are a preferable and possible way of funding highways in Missouri. If more money truly is required, the legislature has the option to raise fuel taxes without sending the issue to a ballot and without resorting to new, inappropriate funding mechanisms.

October 31, 2014

Ridesharing an Option Regulators Want to Keep from Residents

Recently, Ray Mundy, a professor at UMSL (also the head of a consultant group that works for the nation’s top taxi companies and part of the staff of Airport Ground Transportation Association, an airport taxi lobbyist group), was interviewed on a local radio station. While Mundy failed to state his conflict of interest, he lost no time accusing ridesharing companies like Lyft and Uber of having improper background checks, using inadequate insurance, price gouging, and destroying the cab industry that the needy rely on. But in reality, his statements are misleading, and his recommendation to ban these services will only serve to hurt Missouri residents. I will take his issues point by point:

  1. Lyft and Uber have insurance gaps.

This statement may have had validity a few months ago, but this is no longer the case. In July, both Uber and Lyft changed their insurance policies so that cars operate under liability insurance whenever the ridesharing apps are activated. Commercial insurance becomes primary (not secondary as Mundy stated in the interview) when a passenger has been accepted. Both Lyft and Uber detail their policies, and no driver or customer needs to use these systems if they find them inadequate. But regulators and those of Mundy’s persuasion would rather legislate additional insurance (shown not to improve safety) or ban ridesharing.

  1. Every time the taxi industry has been deregulated, it’s been reregulated.

This statement is empirically false, as a Reason study demonstrates.

  1. Ridesharing companies do not perform adequate background checks.

Mundy claims Uber and Lyft drivers might be dangerous because they do not use the same type of background check as most cab companies. Peruse Uber’s qualifications for yourself:


According the Mundy, these tests do not go back as far as taxi checks and do not include arrests where there are no convictions. That seems like a contrived standard, and once again, customers can decide whether they feel Uber or Lyft drivers are safe. But Mundy and other regulators would rather residents did not have such options.

  1. Uber and Lyft use price gouging.

Mundy, and other defenders of taxi regulations, do not like Uber and Lyft using variable pricing, such as charging more money at different times of night or when demand is higher. In reality, allowing for higher fares means drivers have a larger incentive to take fares at 2 a.m. or on New Year’s Eve. It allows the price mechanism to match supply with demand. But Mundy and other regulators would rather Saint Louisans wait hours for cabs that don’t come rather than have the choice to pay a higher fare.

  1. Uber hurts the poor, because cab companies cannot cross-subsidize service.

It is well known that, despite stringent regulations, taxis around the country refuse fares and avoid depressed neighborhoods. The best protection against fare refusal and more service is a large, diverse supply of for-hire vehicles, which ridesharing can help provide. And what’s more, cities like Saint Louis spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on extensive public transit and para-transit services to serve the poor and the disabled. The for-hire vehicle market should not be regulated in order to duplicate those efforts.

If there is a common theme to Mundy’s and regulators’ arguments, it is that city officials, and not city residents, should decide whether ridesharing companies are safe enough, charge the right amount, and provide the right kind of service. But in reality, the corrective action of riders and drivers making their own decisions regarding Uber and Lyft are a far better test of all those criteria, and even Mundy admits the popularity of ridesharing where it has not been quashed by city government. The reality is that most Saint Louisans don’t see cabs as an option, because the service does not meet their needs. That’s a shame, because that hurts residents and hurts the city. But Mundy and the taxicab commission would rather keep it the way it is than let residents make their own choices.

October 24, 2014

Bring Dead Capital to Life

Think of that spare bedroom left vacant by children leaving the nest. Think of that empty passenger seat in most cars as they clog traffic in our major cities. To an economist, those are unused bits of capital: The room could be rented out, satisfying someone’s need for a short-term stay in town; that car seat could be occupied by someone heading in the same direction as the driver. Such unused sources of production are, simply put, dead capital.

Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, recently argued that significant amounts of such dead capital could be brought to productive life if only local governments would stop protecting vested interests and allow entrepreneurs to invigorate their local economies.

How? There are new, exciting companies that empower individuals to improve their economic condition and, at the same time, improve the productivity of capital. One example is the ridesharing service Uber. Uber brings together those with empty passenger seats and those needing a ride across town. My experience (unfortunately, not in Saint Louis) is that Uber rides showed up faster than traditional taxis and that the drivers were more attentive to my needs. Because Uber drivers are rated by riders even in transit, poor drivers can lose business for inadequate service. Competition drives out poor performers.

Airbnb is a market solution to the problem of underutilized housing capital. With excess bedrooms in the United States, why not allow the owners of those empty rooms to satisfy the needs of individuals seeking a place to stay for a night or two? The needs of those willing and able to pay for a room are served and the owner is rewarded with, especially in these still-difficult times, an extra bit of income.

Unfortunately, a maze of state and local regulations block Uber and Airbnb from operating in many locales. “Governments have their own golden opportunity,” Brooks writes, “to exercise creativity in service of the common good, whether that entails rethinking anachronistic zoning laws or adjusting tax policies that treat someone’s spare bedroom the same as a Marriott suite.”

If bringing dead capital to life is good for the economy, isn’t it time for politicians and regulators to awaken to the potential benefits that such services can provide?

August 1, 2014

Show Me Better (Part 4): Certificate Of Need And Market Power

How far are you from the nearest hospital? Maybe you wonder why there is a single mega-hospital 10 miles away but aren’t any smaller ones nearby. Part of the explanation may be certificate of need (CON) regulations.

A 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission found that CON programs “pose serious anticompetitive risks that usually outweigh their purported economic benefits.” So far, I have written about how CON regulations can limit access to care and have been shown to not effectively control costs. CON regulations have the potential to stifle competition and grant existing hospitals monopolies over certain regions. Some existing hospitals may even attempt to use these regulations to prevent competition from entering the market.

How does this play out in Missouri?

In the past, any time a new hospital wanted to open up in Missouri, it had to apply for a CON – irrespective of its size and cost. A revision to Missouri’s CON rules changed the criteria for review from every new hospital to every new hospital whose cost is at least $1 million.

In April 2010, Patients First Community Hospital expressed its intent to build a small hospital in Saint Louis County that did not meet the new threshold for certificate of need review. Shortly thereafter, a regional rival, St. John’s Mercy Health System, filed a lawsuit against the Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee and Patients First. St. John’s challenged the legitimacy of the new $1 million amendment and construction of the new hospital. In 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the new criteria for review was perfectly legal, thus giving Patient’s First the green light for the project.

Despite the ruling against St. John’s, this is an excellent example of a hospital using the legal system in an attempt to stomp out the competition, all under the pretense of CON regulation. It took about two years for Patients First to have its plan approved. These sorts of delays can deprive patients of new, much-needed medical facilities.

The state should not allow such an environment to exist.

July 29, 2014

Show Me Better (Part 3): Certificate Of Need And The Cost Of Care

As consumers, we like to get more for less – especially when it comes to our health. Usually we feel ripped off if we receive a lower-quality service for the same (or higher) cost of a better service. In a previous blog post, I discussed how, in some cases, certificate of need (CON) programs can be the very reason patients are forced to receive inferior care from less-skilled doctors. Additionally, CON regulations likely do not save patients much money, if any.

In a world of limited resources and virtually unlimited wants, we are forced to make trade-offs. A decrease in the quality of health care might be acceptable if CON led to lower costs. Proponents of CON argue that this regulation does contain the cost of care by preventing the “duplication of services” in a given geographic area. To illustrate this chain of reasoning, let’s say that Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Saint Louis University Hospital buy “too many” MRI machines – as a result, many of the new MRI machines go unused. Because of the outlay, CON proponents assume the two hospitals will probably charge higher prices for MRI scans to make up for the mistake.

There is evidence to suggest that theory is not well founded. One evaluation of Illinois’ CON program found that “there is little direct broad proof that overcapacity duplication leads to higher charges.” CON regulations may result in “tangible savings on the actual costs of specific medical technologies” but these programs tend to “redirect expenditures to other areas.” In other words, CON may actually prevent hospitals from spending too much on a certain type of medical technology, but any savings will be spent on other items instead of being passed onto patients. One study even suggests that strict CON programs may actually increase health care costs by as much as 5 percent.

What use is a program that can be delivering sub-optimal health care without cutting costs?

July 23, 2014

St. Louis Taxicab Commission Giveth With One Hand, Taketh With The Other

The St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) has long stifled competition in the name of customer safety. The MTC controls market entry, tells cab and sedan businesses how they can operate, and sets prices. When Lyft launched in Saint Louis, MTC officials claimed they needed to shut down the app to protect customer safety, despite Lyft’s extensive insurance policy, background checks, and vehicle inspections. Now, with Uber preparing to launch in Saint Louis, the MTC is at it again, proposing more regulations to shut out competition.

Yesterday, the MTC approved changes to the taxicab code that would ostensibly allow a company such as Uber (although not Lyft) to operate in Saint Louis. The MTC altered the section of the code concerning premium sedans, which previously were quite onerous, with the implication that Uber can now pursue a license as a premium sedan company. Previously, premium sedans were required to bear written placards with the names of their customers, premium sedan companies could not start a business with fewer than three sedans, and (critically) sedans had to contract services at least 60 minutes in advance of pickup. The MTC voted to remove or relax these restrictions.

While some restrictions are gone, other competition-stifling regulations remain. Sedan companies still must obtain a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for $2,500, essentially asking companies to prove that Saint Louis needs cab service. Furthermore, the MTC still requires that each individual vehicle be licensed as a vehicle for hire (in Uber’s or Lyft’s cases, a premium sedan) with all the controls the MTC places on the appearance and operation of such vehicles.

While Uber might be able to operate with the code changes, it would be severely limited by regulations that the MTC plans on addingFirst, the MTC is still considering making sedans charge a minimum fare of $25 per trip, although the final decision on this takes place later this month. This essentially limits Uber to its premium, black car service. Second, all sedans now have to pay a permit renewal fee of $500 per year. That is more than double the current cost of renewal for sedans and almost five times the fees required for cabs. Uber has cried foul, correctly calling these practices anti-competitive.

The restrictions on sedans in the taxicab code never had much to do with safety, and it is good to see the MTC repeal some of these regulations. However, the additions for a minimum fee for sedan services and onerous renewal requirements have no safety merit whatsoever. Their only possible purpose is to prevent Uber or Lyft from operating an on-demand, cheap vehicle service that might compete with existing taxicabs. Once again, the MTC has shown its true mission is not customer safety or satisfaction, but rather control over the Saint Louis taxi industry.

July 22, 2014

Show Me Better (Part 2): Certificate Of Need And Access To Care

One of the benefits of free markets is their ability to match buyers with sellers. Potential customers assess the supply of goods and services, the parties agree to the prices, and, generally speaking, purchases are efficient – delivering comparable value to both parties.

Unfortunately, Missouri’s certificate of need (CON) program may be erecting barriers to the market functioning efficiently when matching care providers and care consumers. A recent working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined how hospital entry deregulation in Pennsylvania affected the market for cardiac revascularization. Because Pennsylvania eliminated its CON program in 1996, economists were able to compare clinical outcomes before and after the program’s repeal — the ideal conditions by which to conduct an experiment. The researchers found that “free-entry improves the match between underlying medical risk and treatment intensity” and “improved access to care.”

Another study conducted in the same state, on the same topic, found that the post-deregulatory market did a better job at matching the appropriate procedure to the appropriate risk level. After deregulation, better doctors also saw an influx in demand for their services.

Removing the CON program in Pennsylvania empowered patients to attain better care from better doctors. Certainly, a market uninhibited by cumbersome regulations does a better job at matching the right patient to the right procedure, performed by a better doctor, than a nine-member regulatory board. Missouri could follow Pennsylvania’s lead in doing away with the micromanagement and creating a system conducive to competition and innovation.

July 21, 2014

Show Me Better: Assessing Certificate Of Need In Missouri

One of the most obvious examples of a massive government burden on our health care system is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but Obamacare does not have a monopoly on onerous government regulations in Missouri. In fact, some state-run regulatory programs, such as certificate of need (CON), may also play a role in increasing the cost of care and decreasing access to care for some of the state’s neediest patients.

A certificate of need is a legal document the state issues to allow a health care provider to expand, modify, or construct certain health care facilities. In Missouri, a nine-member committee reviews applications for certificates of need and administers them in accordance with its own rules. For example, last year, the Lafayette Health Center received a CON to construct a new $40 million hospital. Based on the committee’s rules, Lafayette likely paid the review committee a hefty $40,000 application fee.

One of the original purposes of the program was to guarantee health care access by limiting competition in a particular region. Proponents assert that, with less competition, the likelihood of a hospital going out of business will be reduced, hopefully ensuring a sufficient level of care for citizens near the health care provider. Yet, empirical evidence suggests that CON programs neither control costs nor improve health outcomes. Indeed, they may actually hamper access to care and patient choice, at least under some circumstances.

If the certificate of need law could be hurting the people it was intended to help, should it be reformed? Abandoned? These questions are central to why we, as Missourians, ought to take a serious look at the necessity and efficacy of the state’s CON program. In future posts, I will review how CON regulations impact health care costs, access to care, and clinical outcomes.

July 16, 2014

The Nanny State Of Nannies: Missouri’s New Day Care Regulations


Being a working mom isn’t easy — I know this because I am one. If the dark circles under my eyes aren’t evidence enough, my bank statement certainly is — day care is expensive. According to one guide, the average working parent spends $600 a month on child care (in cities, that number is closer to $1,000, and in rural communities, it is $350).

The federal government provides financial assistance to eligible parents through the Missouri Child Care Assistance program, regardless of whether or not the day care facility of choice is licensed. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4,000 unlicensed day cares receive $38 million in federal funding per year. In order to continue receiving federal subsidies, Missouri must comply with new standards that the U.S. Department of Health and Senior Services set.

To do so, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed Missouri House Bill 1831. Unlicensed child care providers who receive federal or state funding will now be regulated. Some of these regulations are beneficial (tuberculosis testing), while others seem redundant, such as compliance with building codes. Though regulations aimed at keeping children safe are laudable (yes, if there are indeed fire code exemptions for some child care providers, that should be changed), they may have unintended cost consequences.

According to child care director Latonda Moody, new regulations will negatively affect urban communities, including increasing day care costs. The regulations, she says, will incentivize choosing unlicensed child care providers at lower costs with or without government subsidies.

“If day cares have to raise their rates, their kids will be with people who shouldn’t be watching kids — unlicensed homes, unlicensed churches — or they’ll flat out quit their jobs,” Moody said.

Licensing-averse David Stokes, Show-Me Institute’s director of local government policy, agrees with Latonda’s perspective on rising costs.

“Even if you believe that increased licensing would increase child safety — a belief that is unproven — the changes would have the unintended consequence of driving some marginal number of people toward other alternatives,” Stokes said.

Remember, “unlicensed” facilities in Missouri do have to meet some standards. If you increase costs, some providers will really start offering services in the background with no standards.

We all want safe day care facilities for our children. My child’s safety is at the forefront of any decision I make, but I also understand what it means to have a budget. If increased regulation and licensing cause parents to choose “off-the-grid” day care facilities, then this issue should be further examined.

July 14, 2014

‘Right To Try’ Law Gets Gov. Nixon’s Signature

Today is the last day for Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to veto or sign legislation that the 2014 General Assembly passed. So, with the state’s “Right to Try” proposal still sitting on his desk, I started my workday with a smidgen of trepidation. “Right to Try,” you might remember, would empower patients with terminal illnesses to more freely seek experimental medications in hopes of finding something that could help them.

The concern: Would the governor veto “Right to Try” this year, much like he vetoed the Volunteer Health Services Act last year?

The answer: Nope. He just signed it.

The Governor signed two health-related bills, which will provide Missourians in specific situations with additional options for medical treatment of illness and disease. House Bill 1685 allows drug manufacturers to make available investigational drugs, biological products, or devices to certain eligible terminally ill patients. House Bill 2238 allows the use of hemp extract to treat some individuals with epilepsy and also allows the Department of Agriculture to issue licenses to grow industrial hemp strictly for research purposes. House Bill 2238 contains an emergency clause.

I talked about this bill a lot in the last few months. This was, to me, an obvious opportunity to empower people to make each other’s lives better. The government should open doors for people to care for one another, not erect and maintain barriers to helping each other. “Right to Try’s” enactment is not only a victory of reform-minded policy, but more importantly, it is a victory for Missourians in need.

Congratulations to the Missouri House and Senate for sending the bill to the governor, to the legislators who sponsored the bill and powered this important conversation, and to the governor for making the right decision by adding his support to the unanimous votes of the legislature. Well done.

June 18, 2014

Supply, Demand, And The Minimum Wage

Early last week, Lindenwood University Professor and Show-Me Institute Fellow Howard Wall debated the merits of raising the minimum wage on St. Louis Public Radio. It was an interesting discussion, but  one thing stuck out for me. In the debate, Chris Sommers, who co-owns Pi Pizza and is in favor of raising the minimum wage, stated that (at 5:37), “We raised the wage in order to also attract better people.” This was said in the context of Pi raising the wages its pays its employees.

This is interesting because Pi raised its wages voluntarily. It didn’t need the government to mandate a hike in pay, it chose to do it because it made sense from a business perspective. That is how it is supposed to be. In fact, that is what businesses do. They pay their workers a competitive rate commensurate with the value that these employees generate for the business. If they pay their employees too little, other businesses can offer these workers a higher rate and they will leave. Sommers mentioned his workers moving to another business because it offered a 25-cent increase in hourly wages (at 4:30). This is the market working.

Take what happened in North Dakota as an example. Because businesses were so desperate for workers, even fast food establishments had to significantly increase what they would pay their employees. For example, Taco John’s, a local area fast food restaurant, had to offer new employees $15 an hour salaries in order to get them to work there.

north dakota

I want to help the poor do better, but there are betters options available than raising the minimum wage, like the Earned Income Tax Credit. This would ensure the benefits would go to the people who really need them, the working poor.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »
A project of the

Search Show-Me Sunshine docs @

Top Posts

Show-Me Data



Powered by Wordpress