Fuel Taxes

Question A: Ohio should rely more heavily on user fees than general tax revenue to finance highways.

Question B: As fuel efficiency and electric-vehicle adoption increase, a vehicle-miles-traveled fee would be a more efficient way to fund Ohio's roads than the motor-fuel tax.

Question C: Ohio's annual registration fee on electric vehicles is an efficient way to make up for lost fuel tax revenue.

Question A: Ohio should rely more heavily on user fees than general tax revenue to finance highways.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Strongly Agree	8	Highways are damaged slightly every time they are used. More traffic = more damage and the effect is non-linear with respect to weight, so heavier vehicles do much more damage to the "fourth power law," which means that as axle weight doubles, the damage to the roads increases by 2_ = 16 times. So we really need a fee for vehicle miles that is adjusted for axle weight. Also, there are environmental damages from the pollution of burning gas and especially diesel that cause health problems for people near roadways.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	10	user fees place a disproportionate burden on trucking firms, which could subsidize consumers; and increasing use of hybrid and electric vehicles has eroded the ability of a gas tax to serve as a user fee
Bolong Cao	Ohio University	Uncertain	9	Need to balance the traffic friendliness vs. burden to the general public.
Joyce Chen	Ohio State University	Disagree	7
John Conzelmann	Denison University	Disagree	6	Uncertainty here about what type of "user fee" would actually work, but also disagree in the sense that roads create potential benefits for people who don't use them directly too.
Colin Davison	University of Akron	Agree	5	Theoretically, it would be more efficient to rely on user fees but practically implementing this may be infeasible.
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Strongly Agree	10	Particularly an efficient tax change is having the registration fee of the vehicle increase dramatically with the weight of the vehicle to account for the extra damage heavy vehicles due to roads and the external cost they impose on other drivers on the road if an accident occurs. Research shows vehicles over 4,000 pounds are more dangerous to other cars in the road if an accident occurs due to the mismatch of vehicle size.
Ali Enami	University of Akron	Disagree	8
Lucas Engelhardt	Kent State University	Agree	3	In general, it makes sense to have the beneficiary pay for the benefit. However, the practical side gets tricky - trying to proportion the fees paid to the actual level of use may not be worth the cost of administration and enforcement.
Erwin Erhardt	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	8	The roads and bridges across America have fallen into serious disrepair. It would have to be a significant cost to highway drivers to even start to catch up with repairs.
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Strongly Disagree	10
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Disagree	7	User fees (such as gasoline taxes or vehicle-miles-traveled fees) are regressive, meaning that lower income people pay a higher share of their income than wealthier people do. We all benefit from well-maintained roads. Ohio should rely more heavily on a progressive income tax to finance highways.
PJ Glandon	Kenyon College	Strongly Agree	9	In the absence of externalities, you generally want the price of a good or service to reflect its cost. In other words, you'd like the price of using a road to fully reflect the cost of installing and maintaining them. What would be even better is congestion pricing so that those who use roads at the time of day when they are most valuable pay the highest price. This would encourage people to reduce their commutes.
Alex Hollingsworth	Ohio State University	Disagree	7
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Agree	5
Evan Kresch	Oberlin College	Agree	8
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Agree	9
Bill LaFayette	Regionomics	Disagree	7	As electrical vehicles proliferate and fuel efficiency improves, gas taxes move further away from the total needed to preserve our deteriorating roads. Roads benefit everybody, not just those who drive on them.
Sokchea Lim	John Carroll University	Strongly Agree	10	Charging user fees helps ensure drivers pay for the actual costs they create, most importantly traffic congestion and pollution.
David Lindequist	Miami University	Agree	7	User fees link payments to highway use and would thus better target the costs drivers impose. If fees also reflect congestion and road damage, they could encourage even more efficient use of highways.
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Disagree	9
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8
Thomas Sahajdack	Kent State University	Uncertain	8	While it is clear that spending public funds on roads is a subsidy for drivers, and is paid even by those who don't drive, I don't know that it's clear that such a subsidy is inherently bad. Since many people use roads across the income spectrum, user fees could disproportionately affect lower income drivers who still need to get to work, school, groceries or other non-discretionary trips. I'm not certain what the right mix of user fees and general tax revenue would be, but well maintained roads do indirectly result in benefits even for non-drivers so I think it seems reasonable that at least some highway maintenance is coming from general tax revenue.
Roman Sheremeta	Case Western Reserve University	Agree	9	People who use roads more, and heavier vehicles that damage them more, should pay more.
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Uncertain	5
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	6
Jonathan Wolff	Miami University	Uncertain	5	Taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are de facto taxes on economic activity. They are an additional cost of commuting to work or going shopping. Because gasoline demand is inelastic in the short run, we would expect consumers to enjoy most of the proceeds from this tax holiday. I would expect this tax holiday to have a modestly stimulative effect on growth in Ohio.

Question B: As fuel efficiency and electric-vehicle adoption increase, a vehicle-miles-traveled fee would be a more efficient way to fund Ohio's roads than the motor-fuel tax.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Agree	8	This should really apply to all vehicles so that we can adjust the fees according to the axel weight and the pollution generated because old diesel engines produce a lot more pollution than newer gas engines and EVs produce the least pollution of all although they are heavy relative to gas powered cars of the same size so EVs should pay correspondingly more for road damage in line with the fourth power law. It could also make car insurance fairer by helping insurance companies track actual mileage so that heavier drivers pay their fair share of insurance payments.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Disagree	9	If you use GPS tracking of Ohio drivers, it would be feasible, but people would probably have big privacy concerns. Other ways of implementing a miles-driven system have high costs of administering the system compared to a gas tax.
Bolong Cao	Ohio University	Disagree	9	Fairness (most mileage from travel outside the state) and privacy concerns.
Joyce Chen	Ohio State University	Agree	7
John Conzelmann	Denison University	Agree	7	With some uncertainty as to how those miles traveled would be reported, calculated, and enforced. We don't have annual inspection requirements here in Ohio, like other states, where this would probably be easier to implement.
Colin Davison	University of Akron	Agree	3	This could be an efficient way to fund Ohio's roads, but the administrative burden of measuring vehicle-miles traveled seems large.
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Disagree	5	Ohio's $200 annual registration fee on electric vehicles (vs. $35 for gas car) is already a little more than the average gas car driver pays in state gas tax so this change already makes-up for lost state gas tax revenue from an electric car. The advantage is it is easy to implement as it is just a higher annual registration fee. Yes, a vehicle-miles-traveled fee would be more efficient as those driving electric cars more would then pay more, but it would require tracking each vehicle's annual mileage, which is not currently done. And observing car rentals, citizen's pay the same daily rate for a car no matter how much they drive it so generally citizens prefer a flat rate versus per mile rate.
Ali Enami	University of Akron	Strongly Agree	10	I would add that other factors, such as vehicle weight, should be included in the calculation of the fee. That is, holding vehicle miles traveled constant, a road used by heavier vehicles would require more frequent repairs.
Lucas Engelhardt	Kent State University	Agree	4	In as far as the goal is funding roads, it makes sense to proportion the fee to the use of roads - miles traveled being a reasonable approach, and much more representative of the benefit than "fuel used" is. The one wrinkle here: the gas tax is part road user fee but also part emissions charge. So, for the question of road funding, a per-mile charge is more efficient - but that doesn't mean that it's more efficient overall.
Erwin Erhardt	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	9
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Disagree	7
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Disagree	8	There are many different ways to interpret what "more efficient" means in this question, but the vehicle-miles-traveled fee would be less efficient than a motor-fuel tax in two key ways. First, there is a significant administrative cost to monitor and collect such a fee. Second, all else equal, shifting more of the tax burden onto electric-vehicle drivers disincentivizes electric-vehicle adoption on the margin, and greater electric-vehicle adoption is more efficient on a global scale when we consider the social cost of carbon. There are specific factors that could mitigate these concerns, but without them mentioned here, I can't say that this proposal would be more efficient.
PJ Glandon	Kenyon College	Agree	8	You still want the fuel tax there to encourage more environmentally friendly modes of transportation though.
Alex Hollingsworth	Ohio State University	Agree	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	5
Evan Kresch	Oberlin College	Uncertain	4
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	9
Bill LaFayette	Regionomics	Disagree	8	How do we verify miles traveled? By requiring everybody to take their vehicle to a certified garage and file attested statements? It would be a hassle for everybody.
Sokchea Lim	John Carroll University	Strongly Disagree	9	Unlike a vehicle-miles-traveled fee, a motor-fuel tax directly encourages people to choose more fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative transit options. The current fuel tax is too low to adequately influence behavior or reflect environmental impacts. The current higher gas prices do have a silver lining. They naturally accelerate the shift toward cleaner, more efficient transportation.
David Lindequist	Miami University	Agree	6	Mileage fees reflect road use more directly than fuel taxes and they would also include electric vehicles. They could lead to more efficiency assuming collection costs remain manageable and emissions are addressed separately.
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Uncertain	10
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8
Thomas Sahajdack	Kent State University	Strongly Agree	9	While this kind of tax would certainly be more efficient, it's not clear that it is feasible, practical or politically desirable to monitor miles travelled in the manner necessary to implement such a tax in an efficient way.
Roman Sheremeta	Case Western Reserve University	Strongly Agree	9	The fuel tax increasingly taxes inefficient engines rather than road use. A VMT fee prices what drivers actually consume. Its efficiency gain will depend on design. Rates should rise with vehicle weight and it should be paired with a separate charge for emissions the fuel tax used to proxy.
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Disagree	8
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	6
Jonathan Wolff	Miami University	Disagree	8	In the short run, it's difficult for individuals to change the number of miles driven in a week. Daily travel -- like work, church, schools, etc -- are fixed distances for most people. In the longer run, however, you can make lifestyle adjustments to change the number of miles driven.

Question C: Ohio's annual registration fee on electric vehicles is an efficient way to make up for lost fuel tax revenue.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Strongly Disagree	8	This lump-sum fee provides zero disincentive to drive more. It also overcharges low-mileage drivers and undercharges high-mileage ones. Anyhow, a typical EV produces a fraction of one thousandth as much road damage as a fully-loaded semi-truck, so most of the cost of road maintenance should be borne by heavy vehicles like trucks which would make our overall transportation system more efficient by moving more freight to railroads who already pay for all of their own (rail)road maintenance unlike the trucking industry which is heavily subsidized by taxpayers for their road usage. All Ohio drivers pay a lump-sum registration fee to be able to drive which is unfair and inefficient because heavier road users should pay more than people whose antique cars just sit in storage most of the year.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8
Bolong Cao	Ohio University	Agree	7	EV become less affordable for low income population, especially with hidden operating cost.
Joyce Chen	Ohio State University	Disagree	6
John Conzelmann	Denison University	Disagree	6	Maybe, as a way to force EV drivers to pay something. But the pool of EV drivers is still small and current policy environment does not suggest it will be getting much bigger anytime soon with loss of subsidies. I think a mileage-based charge would be more efficient.
Colin Davison	University of Akron	Strongly Disagree	10	It does not account for miles driven. As said earlier, if there is a significant burden in measuring vehicle-miles driven, then this may be the only reasonable alternative.
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	8	Looking at other countries, electric cars are the future. Norway leads the way with 99% of all new cars sold being electric. If the state is concerned about high gas prices for Ohioans, it can build a better infrastructure of fast charging stations so that drivers are more comfortable switching to electric cars. The future of the American auto industry depends on them successfully building competitive electric cars. I so look forward to the day when gas prices are a thing of the past.
Ali Enami	University of Akron	Agree	7
Lucas Engelhardt	Kent State University	Disagree	3	An annual registration fee does not proportion the cost to the benefit - and so disproportionately makes low-use car owners bear the burden. However, there is one wrinkle: any tax/fee system has a cost of administration and enforcement. It may be that the lost efficiency from failing to proportion cost to benefit is made up from lower administrative/enforcement costs.
Erwin Erhardt	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	4
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Uncertain	8
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Disagree	5	It may be more efficient for the state to assess an annual fee than to either require costly technology to monitor miles driven or to hire the staff to verify this, but it is not efficient in so far as it discourages electric vehicle adoption, on the margin, which exacerbates the global market failure of climate change.
PJ Glandon	Kenyon College	Uncertain	8	It depends on what we're comparing this to. It would be more efficient to charge a fee per mile traveled than a fixed EV fee.
Alex Hollingsworth	Ohio State University	Strongly Disagree	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	5
Evan Kresch	Oberlin College	Disagree	8
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Bill LaFayette	Regionomics	Agree	7
Sokchea Lim	John Carroll University	Strongly Disagree	10	Instead of imposing extra fees on electric vehicles, the government should do the opposite. It should incentivize EV adoption to reduce the overall number of gas-powered cars on our roads.
David Lindequist	Miami University	Disagree	6	A flat annual fee would ignore how much people drive and can also discourage EV adoption. It may be simple to administer, but a mileage fee would better link payments to road use and would thereby provide a better incentive to economize on driving.
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Agree	7
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Disagree	6
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Disagree	5
Thomas Sahajdack	Kent State University	Disagree	4
Roman Sheremeta	Case Western Reserve University	Strongly Disagree	9	The marginal mile costs nothing, so low-mileage drivers subsidize high-mileage ones.
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Disagree	9
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	5
Jonathan Wolff	Miami University	Disagree	8	The annual registration fee is 'lump-sum' tax and won't be tied to your usage of the roads. This is in stark contrast to the gas tax, which is a de facto proxy for miles driven. In the long run, I would expect a lump sum tax, replacing a gas tax, to lead to more public road use.

University Consolidation

Question A: Reducing the number of universities in Ohio would generate savings for the state of Ohio.

Question B: Reducing the number of universities in Ohio would reduce Ohio's bachelor's degree attainment rate.

Question C: Reducing the number of universities in Ohio would reduce long-term economic output in the state of Ohio.

Question A: Reducing the number of universities in Ohio would generate savings for the state of Ohio.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8	There would be direct cost savings, but only about 6% of the state's general revenue fund currently goes to higher ed anyway.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	7
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Disagree	5	The "state share of instruction" is one pot of money that the state allocates to all public universities based on a formula. The state can increase or decrease this total amount independent of the total number of public universities.
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Uncertain	9
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Disagree	9
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Agree	9	It would save money for the State in the short run but would be penny wise and pound foolish in the long run. Education is one of the primary functions of government.
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	7	Shutting down some universities might save Ohio some money, but it will ultimately weaken our work force and hurt communities.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Uncertain	6
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Strongly Disagree	9	There is certainly an argument that the demand for higher education will continue to drop based on demographic changes. That could certainly suggest that the sector needs to adjust (and I do believe it should) but the NUMBER of institutions is not the correct margin. This is the type of thing that sounds good but misses the important points. In fact, there is even an argument that there is little savings at all because the real appropriations per full-time equivalent student in Ohio in 2025 was lower than it was in 1980 (data from State Higher Education Finance).
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Disagree	5
Andy Welki Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	8
Rachel Wilson	College Board	Strongly Agree	10

Question B: Reducing the number of universities in Ohio would reduce Ohio's bachelor's degree attainment rate.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8	Remote learning makes it possible to get a degree from anywhere, but less convenient access would dissuade some students from attending.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	8	80% of the Univ. of Toledo students live off campus and commute to UToledo. This is similarly true for many of the Ohio public universities. Closing any one of them will decrease the local cheaper public university option and some will not attend college.
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Agree	9
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Uncertain	9
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	10	If there were fewer universities that potential students could get to, there will be fewer people receiving degrees.
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Agree	10	It will reduce the number of bachelor's degrees and eventually reduce the number of graduate degrees as well.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Agree	7
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8	At one point I may have been persuaded that we could have less universities and rely more on online learning to provide access to higher ed. However, there is too much research showing that online learning leads to much lower outcomes for students in terms of both test scores as well as employment. And that was before AI created even new problems for online learning (in the sense of whether students are doing the work themselves).
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Agree	9
Andy Welki Welki	John Carroll University	Uncertain	7
Rachel Wilson	College Board	Agree	7

Question C: Reducing the number of universities in Ohio would reduce long-term economic output in the state of Ohio.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	5	There would be some loss of human capital development balanced by some tax savings. The real issue isn't the number of universities; it's whether our higher ed institutions are producing the skills and talent employers need. Analyzing Ohio universities based on the state's return on investment in them might reveal some that deserve less investment and others that deserve more. Ohio's SSI (State Share of Instruction) is a performance-based funding formula that tries to get at this, but maybe the formula could be improved.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Agree	8
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	7	On average college graduates earn more reflecting their extra value to the economy. Closing any local public university will reduce some local commuters from attending college and thus will reduce valuable workers to the economy in the long-term. Moreover, currently about maybe 15% to 30% of the Univ. of Toledo budget is from state subsidy. How low does this number go before we stop calling these universities "public state universities"? If the state continues to decrease total funding for public universities maybe some will choose to switch to being private institutions with more flexibility and no state oversite.
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Agree	9
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Agree	9
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	9	An educated work force is still important for the economic output of Ohio. We need doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, and so many other fields, too.
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Agree	8	His plan will make Ohio less attractive to people who might move here.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Agree	7
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	6	I am less confident about this for one simple reason: Ohio struggles to keep the college graduates that we create. If the state cannot keep college graduates then producing college graduates may matter less (from the perspective of the state). So trying to keep more graduates would seem to be a related problem. However, quality higher education is something that tends to facilitate economic activities so it doesn't seem like a good idea to reduce the number of institutions.
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Agree	8
Andy Welki Welki	John Carroll University	Uncertain	8	The relationship between the number of public universities and number of college graduates is uncertain. How much excess capacity is there in the public university system?
Rachel Wilson	College Board	Uncertain	6

Medicaid Fraud Prevention

Question A: Medicaid fraud prevention programs that increase penalties and require additional verification and inspections will create fiscal savings that outweigh the administrative costs of running them.

Question B: Medicaid fraud prevention programs that increase penalties and require additional verification and inspections will reduce access for vulnerable populations like people with disabilities.

Question C: Medicaid fraud prevention programs that increase penalties and require additional verification and inspections will generate a greater economic return than expanding benefits for recipients.

Question A: Medicaid fraud prevention programs that increase penalties and require additional verification and inspections will create fiscal savings that outweigh the administrative costs of running them.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	No Opinion	1	One would hope, and it seems likely, but I'm not qualified to judge.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	7	The administrative costs are certain, but it's uncertain yet how much fraud will be discovered and prevented.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Disagree	5
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Agree	8
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Uncertain	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	8	A low-cost verification system that confirms identity and eligibility at the moment that services are provided should produce a positive ROI for Ohio. Ohio should be implementing electronic visit verification for nearly every service that is reimbursed. Unfortunately, AI and other economic forces are moving us from a high-trust to a low-trust society; and reasonable checks and inspections can help restore societal trust in government services.
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Agree	9
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Strongly Disagree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Disagree	7	This is always the challenge: more verification/inspections are costly and I do not think that there will be much fiscal savings. Medicaid fraud does exist but the estimates are that it is not a large percentage of total spending.
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Agree	6
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Agree	6
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	8
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Uncertain	7	It all depends on what the verification and fraud prevention programs are. The ones that are in the bill in Ohio focus on providers, which I believe is the proper focus. Reducing fraudulent providers can be impactful. Programs directed at reducing fraud among recipients are less likely to have fiscal savings that outweigh administrative costs.

Question B: Medicaid fraud prevention programs that increase penalties and require additional verification and inspections will reduce access for vulnerable populations like people with disabilities.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Uncertain	1	It will undoubtedly reduce access in the short run because of inevitable false positives which reduce necessary care, but in the long run, IF it increases the efficiency of Medicaid, it could increase care because of helping channel scarce dollars to the patients who really need them rather than to fraudsters.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	7	Some providers will balk at the additional hoops they have to go through, reducing the number of care providers.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Uncertain	6
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Disagree	8
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Uncertain	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Disagree	8
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10	Vulnerable people are likely to get snared by the fraud prevention program which may penalize people who Medicaid is supposed to help.
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Agree	8
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8	If changes make it more challenging or more tedious or more confusing for individuals to provide verification then it would decrease access.
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	7
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Uncertain	5
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Disagree	7
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Uncertain	5	As long as the fraud prevention and verification requirements are reasonable, I do not expect it to have an impact on vulnerable populations. However, if the requirements are too burdensome for providers, it may limit the number of providers.

Question C: Medicaid fraud prevention programs that increase penalties and require additional verification and inspections will generate a greater economic return than expanding benefits for recipients.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	No Opinion	1	It depends on whether or not this makes Medicaid more efficient. I would hope so, but I'm not qualified to judge.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	6	We won't know the extent of fraud currently committed or prevented until such measures are enacted. Expanding benefits for current recipients would increase costs, fraud, and access to care.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Uncertain	6
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Disagree	8
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Uncertain	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	8
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	6	I doubt the financial return of the program will exceed its expenses. In addition, there will be a social cost of vulnerable populations losing benefits.
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Strongly Disagree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Disagree	8
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Agree	6
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Disagree	8
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	7	Confidence in a well run system promotes greater support.
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Uncertain	5