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