AIMBlog_Logo_Resized

Power and Collaboration on Beacon Hill

Posted by Rick Lord on Sep 21, 2016 4:27:48 PM

An article in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Business lobby holds new sway on Beacon Hill, accurately reports that Associated Industries of Massachusetts exerts unique influence on Beacon Hill on behalf of employers.

statehousedome.jpgWe do. That’s why your company is a member.

Unfortunately, the article also distorts AIM’s position on an important piece of legislation - the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – and contains a glaring factual error. I feel it is important to set the record straight.

The article reports that AIM opposed The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act during the 2015-2016 legislative session. But the article does not tell you that our opposition reflected legitimate concern among employers that the legislation duplicates existing law and provides an applicant or employee with the power to reject multiple and reasonable offers of accommodation by an employer.

The issue is similar to the recent debate over wage equity, in which AIM initially opposed a flawed bill meant to accomplish a goal we all supported. Far from exercising “veto power” over the House of Representatives, as one senator asserted to the Globe, AIM was able to work with House Speaker Robert DeLeo and the attorney general to develop an acceptable piece of legislation that we were ultimately proud to support and that Governor Charlie Baker signed.

The Globe article fails to mention that AIM has signaled the Legislature that we are willing to enter into the same type of negotiations on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. AIM executives told reporter Frank Phillips on several occasions that the association supports fair treatment of pregnant women and is open to discussions to eliminate provisions of the bill that would place an undue burden on employers.

The article also inaccurately reports that Cape Air, the business owned by retiring Senator Dan Wolf, D-Harwich, is a member of Associated Industries of Massachusetts. For the record, Cape Air has not been a member of AIM since 2003.

As member employers you should be proud of that AIM represents your interests with unparalleled skill and integrity. You should also acknowledge that the Massachusetts House of Representatives is developing workable legislation for the people of Massachusetts by working collaboratively with the business community.

The bottom line of the Globe article is that no organization is more prominent in public policy debates that AIM.

Please contact me if you have any questions about the article or AIM’s positions.

 

Topics: Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Massachusetts senate, Massachusetts House of Representatives

Legislative Scorecard Paints Tale of Two Chambers

Posted by John Regan on Aug 29, 2016 7:35:05 AM


Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) today released its 2015-2016 Legislative Scorecardd, the most widely read report on the voting record of Massachusetts legislators on issues important to employers. AIM releases the Legislative Scorecard at the end of each two-year session to ensure that members know legislators’ records on key economic and public-policy issues, and to recognize lawmakers who understand the importance of a vibrant economy for all residents.

Scorecard2016.jpgThe 2015-2016 legislative session was a tale of two chambers. While the House of Representatives and Speaker Robert DeLeo successfully forged consensus on important measures such as wage equity and energy, the Senate hewed to a more progressive, ideological approach that produced a steady stream of bills with the potential to harm the Massachusetts economy. The divergent approaches are reflected in the Legislative Scorecard results.

Virtually every member of the House of Representatives earned grades of 50 percent or higher and 126 reps ended the session at 75 percent or better. The ratings were based on a dozen roll-call votes dealing with issues ranging from economic development to restricting the use of non-compete agreements.

In the Senate, meanwhile, only five of 40 members managed grades above 50 percent and a staggering 15 Senators posted scores of 18 percent. The highest score in the Senate belonged to Senator Don Humason of Westfield at 59 percent.

The Senate scores were based upon many of the same issues debated by the House, as well as additional votes on so-called wage theft and efforts to modify the commonwealth’s punitive treble damages law. Two key Senate votes – on energy and non-compete agreements – were not included because they were conducted as voice votes.

The Legislative Scorecard selects votes that reflect the objectives of The Blueprint for the Next Century, AIM’s long-term plan for economic prosperity in Massachusetts. The plan maintains that only a vibrant, private-sector economy creates opportunity that binds the social, governmental, and economic foundations of our commonwealth.

The Blueprint contains four specific recommendations against which AIM measures public policy issues:

  1. Develop the best system in the world for educating and training workers with the skills needed to allow Massachusetts companies to succeed in a rapidly changing global economy.
  2. Support business formation and expansion by creating a uniformly competitive economic structure across all industries, geographic regions and populations, rather than picking winners and losers.
  3. Establish a world-class state regulatory system that ensures the health and welfare of society in a manner that meets the highest standards of efficiency, predictability, transparency and responsiveness.
  4. Moderate the immense long-term burden that health care and energy costs place on business growth.
"We hope that employers find the Legislative Scorecard informative, and that they will share the results with your colleagues and associates," said Richard C. Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer of AIM.

Topics: Massachusetts Legislature, Massachusetts senate, Massachusetts economy, Massachusetts House of Representatives

Workers Comp Debate Relies on Faulty Numbers

Posted by John Regan on Oct 26, 2015 7:30:00 AM

The Massachusetts State Senate approved a bill on Thursday that would expand eligibility and compensation for injured workers under the law’s disfigurement provision.

statehousedomeThe vote followed a debate characterized by misinformation, inaccuracy and an unwillingness to determine the financial impact that the proposed changes would have on employers, the commonwealth, cities and towns and the workers compensation system as a whole.

Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) opposes the measure and in a letter sent prior to the vote urged senators to examine the costs associated with each change.

Senator Sal DiDomenico, (D-Everett) led the Senate’s debate in favor of the bill.

The bill would expand covered disfigurement injuries to those occurring anywhere on a person's body and raise the current $15,000 compensation for any scar to an amount equal to 22.5 percent of the average weekly salary, or nearly $29,000.

The current system was established under the workers compensation reform act of 1991 as a compromise to ensure that workers compensation covered visible scarring from on-the-job injuries while controlling a major cost factor in the system.  Injuries resulting in disfigurement (as distinct from surgical scarring) are still compensable under Massachusetts law.  The rationale behind the scarring benefit holds that certain scars could affect quality of life post injury and may also affect return to work prospects.

Senator DiDomenico, using data received from the state’s Department of Industrial Accidents, asserted that only 1,936 workers were awarded disfigurement benefits last fiscal year and only $300,000 in benefits were awarded. He further stated that the bill would lead to no more than $500,000 in new costs. 

These figures are just wrong. 

One industry source predicts an impact to premiums in the insured market (not the self-insured or public market) of 3.4 percent or $40 million. Another estimate by an insurance provider, predicted costs could increase by twice the 3.4 percent, or nearly $80 million, because nearly 20 percent of claims involve surgery.

On the public side, (where the Senate Ways and Means Committee suggested there would be zero cost impact) Massachusetts state government spends $54.4 million on workers compensation. That means cost increases ranging between 3.4 to 6.8 percent would increase bills for the commonwealth by $2 million to $3.7 million.

Only Senator Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth) voted against the bill, saying he was worried that "little by little, piece by piece, slice by slice" the Senate was making it more challenging to do business in Massachusetts.

AIM agrees. 

We urge the House to review the data more carefully and to listen to those with a firm grasp of the cost implications of the bill.

Topics: Workers Compensation, Massachusetts senate

Senate Declines to Postpone Sick-Leave Law

Posted by Gary MacDonald on Apr 16, 2015 8:30:00 AM

The state Senate yesterday rejected an effort by Associated Industries of Massachusetts to postpone the July 1 implementation of the new paid sick-leave law. AIM sought the delay because employers have no clear instructions on how to comply.

Senate_ChamberSenator Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport, filed a budget amendment that would have moved the effective date of the voter-approved leave law to January 1, 2016. The amendment was withdrawn, however, after it became clear that there was not enough support to pass it.

Attorney General Maura Healey, who is developing the regulations that employers will have to follow, opposed the effort to move the deadline. The Senate’s action raises the probability that the paid sick-days law will take effect three days before final regulations are in place.

Massachusetts voters approved a ballot question on November 4 mandating that employers with 11 or more workers provide 40 hours of paid sick time. Companies with fewer than 11 employees will be required to provide 40 hours of unpaid sick time.

The law has touched off a wave of concern among employers who say that the 75 days remaining until July 1 do not provide them enough time to understand the yet-to-be-published regulations and to program payroll systems to account for the new law. One employer who already has a sick-leave policy in place reports that he needs at least 120 days to work with his payroll company to make the necessary programing changes.

Employers also face a litany of time-consuming administrative issues. For example, an employee who used to accrue 15 days of Paid Time Off (PTO) prorated over each payroll now will accrue 10 days of PTO prorated over each payroll and up to five days of Earned Sick Time (EST) accrued at one hour for every 30 hours worked. And re-characterizing existing time off from accrued PTO to EST may lead to an excess accrual and payout before July 1 to avoid loss of earned time that may not be carried over in excess of 40 hours.

“Massachusetts employers deeply appreciate the effort by Senator Rodrigues to provide adequate time to companies to meet their obligations under a complex new law. AIM worked hard on behalf of its 7,500 member employers to resolve these issues and we are disappointed that the Senate did not act,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for AIM.

The proposed delay drew heavy opposition from organized labor, which paid for advertisements saying “Stop the attack on earned sick time for working families.”

The Attorney General’s office is expected to issue draft sick-days regulations later this month. AIM will brief member employers via Webinar on the draft regulations once they are published.

Employers with questions or comments on the paid sick-days law may contact me at gmacdonald@aimnet.org, or Brad Macdougall at bmacdougall@aimnet.org

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Employment Law, Paid Sick Days

Senate Bill Would Expand R&D Credit; Restrict Non-Compete Agreements

Posted by Christopher Geehern on Jul 2, 2014 2:56:00 PM

The Massachusetts Senate approved an economic development bill yesterday that would restrict the use of non-compete agreements and broaden existing tax incentives for companies to conduct research and development.

IntellectualProspertyA legislative conference committee will now hammer out differences between the Senate bill and a similar measure passed several weeks ago by the House of Representatives. The House bill includes neither the non-compete nor the R&D tax provisions.

AIM supports the updated R&D tax credit. The association continues to study the Senate non-compete measure with an eye toward maintaining adequate protections for the intellectual property of employers.

The non-compete compromise would prohibit employers from using the agreements with hourly employees and limit the length of those agreements to six months.

Non-competes would have to be presented at least five business days before the employee starts work, or when any formal offer of employment is first made to the employee. If the agreement is entered into after the person is already employed, but not in connection with separation from employment, it must be supported by fair and reasonable consideration in addition to the continuation of employment, and notice of the agreement must be provided at least 10 business days before the agreement is to be effective.

The Patrick administration and a coalition of venture capitalists have been seeking to ban non-competes altogether, arguing that they inhibit the growth of new companies in the innovation economy. AIM has led the effort to preserve the current law governing the use of non-competes.

Brad MacDougall, Vice President of Government at AIM, says the non-compete issue is really about choice for both individuals and employers, who should be free to negotiate contracts of mutual benefit as long as the employee is a part of the process.

Employees already enjoy legal protection against overly restrictive non-compete agreements, according to MacDougall.  Case law dictates that enforcement of agreements occurs only when they:

  • are narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests;
  • are limited in time, geography, and scope;
  • are consonant with public policy; and
  • the harm to the employer from non-enforcement outweighs the harm to the employee.

The Senate bill seeks to reassure employers about protection of intellectual property by adopting a version of the federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act. But the Massachusetts version contains a major problem – it forbids court injunctions with respect to trade secrets “unless the trade secret is specified with sufficient particularity so as to reasonably enable the respondent to prepare a reasonable defense under the circumstances.” 

So an employer would have to specify with “particularity” the trade secrets at issue before obtaining an injunction.  It would be nearly impossible for a company to secure an injunction before a competitor or former employee carries away vital company information.

Massachusetts Secretary and Housing and Economic Development Gregory Bialecki signaled yesterday that the administration is open to compromise on non-competes.

Sen. Michael Rodrigues, a Westport Democrat, disagreed with the provision preventing hourly workers from being subjected to non-compete agreements. Rodrigues argued that in the building trades employers often pay for training and licensing for their workers, and need protection that non-compete agreements offer.

All four Republicans – Sens. Bruce Tarr, Robert Hedlund, Richard Ross, and Donald Humason - and Sens. Rodrigues, Harriette Chandler and Karen Spilka voted against the amendment. 

The R&D tax credit amendment filed by Rodrigues, Tarr and Senator Barry Feingold, would allow employers the option to claim a credit equal to 10 of any research expenses that exceed a base amount calculated over a period of three years. Current law allows credits only for incremental R&D spending over a set base period in the 1980s.

AIM believes the changes are necessary to reverse a troubling 19.3 percent decline in R&D spending among Massachusetts employers between 2007 and 2011. The vast majority of research and development in Massachusetts takes place not in urban innovation districts, but in advanced manufacturing, defense and biopharma companies salted throughout the commonwealth

“And we know that R&D credits work. Massachusetts enacted a set of research and development tax incentives in 1991 that were among the most advantageous in the nation. Over the next five years, R&D spending in the commonwealth increased by more than 50 percent,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for AIM.

A recent report from The Pioneer Institute found that overall R&D spending in Massachusetts fell 10.3 percent in the four years ending in 2011. Massachusetts fell further behind chief R&D rival California, which significantly increased its R&D market share on the strength of one of the strongest R&D credits in the nation – 15 percent.

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Non-Compete Agreements, Taxes

State Extends Unemployment Tax Deadline

Posted by Christopher Geehern on Mar 24, 2014 6:21:00 AM

Unemployment InsuranceMassachusetts has extended by one month the deadline for employers to pay first-quarter Unemployment Insurance bills as lawmakers remain deadlocked over the best way to freeze UI rates and head off a $500 million tax increase that took effect January 1.

Both the state Senate and House of Representatives support a rate freeze for 2014, but disagree about how to wrap that freeze into a broader set of reforms to the state’s costly Unemployment Insurance system. House leaders were unable to vote last week on Speaker Robert DeLeo’s UI reform and minimum wage proposal because of a procedural maneuver by the Senate not to extend the time for reporting the bill from committee.

The vote Thursday by the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance Advisory Committee to postpone first-quarter UI payments until May 30 will give lawmakers additional time to avert a 33 percent rate increase before employers have to pay it.

AIM Executive Vice President of Government Affairs John Regan, who represents employers on the DUA Advisory Committee, said the delay is the only way to prevent hundreds of millions of dollars from being unnecessarily drawn out of the productive economy. The Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund used to pay jobless benefits in Massachusetts currently enjoys a healthy balance of approximately $800 million.

“AIM supports the delay but is disappointed that it is necessary at all.  The UI rate freeze is an agreed upon policy choice that should have been done days, if not weeks ago.  We are still hopeful that a freeze will be taken up sooner rather than later,” Regan said.

“The change in the regulations ensures that employers’ bills are processed in a timely manner and not at the last minute.”

Multiple media outlets reported last week that the House bill would raise the minimum wage to from $8 per hour to $10.50 per hour, freeze unemployment insurance rates for the next four years, and reward businesses with a record of low employee turnover.

The proposal, initially outlined two weeks ago by DeLeo, would:

  • Raise the per-employee taxable wage base from $14,000 to $16,000. A separate UI reform bill passed by in February by the Senate raised the taxable wage base to $21,000.
  • Introduce a new rate table with levels added at each end of the spectrum to decrease the financial burden on high-rated employers with low workforce turnover while penalizing negatively rated employers.
  • Create a new employment fund to be capitalized by an increase in a per-employee tax on businesses and dedicated through grants to community-based job training organizations. The fees would be adjusted to generate $80 million for the fund, up from the existing $18 million cost to business.

Neither the House bill, nor the Senate UI reform passed on February 6, include provisions supported by AIM to reduce the maximum duration of benefit weeks from 30 to 26 or increase the time people must work before collecting benefits.

Regan urged lawmakers to prioritize the 2014 rate freeze and then hammer out their differences over long-term reform.

“Uncertainty is the enemy of economic growth and the impending UI rate increase represents a huge dose of uncertainty for Massachusetts employers,” he said.

AIM has opposed increasing the minimum wage at the state level. The House proposes to increase in the minimum wage to $10.50 by July 2016, and expand the earned income tax credit in Massachusetts from 15 percent of the federal credit to 20 percent, saving taxpayers an estimated $41.2 million to $45.5 million, according to documents prepared by the committee.

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Unemployment insurance, Massachusetts House of Representatives

Senate Seeks Rate Stability with Unemployment Insurance Bill

Posted by John Regan on Feb 6, 2014 5:09:00 PM

The Massachusetts Senate passed an Unemployment Insurance reform bill today designed to stabilize UI tax rates for most employers and make those rates more dependent on the hiring and firing record of individual companies. 

The measure includes an immediate freeze of UI rates for 2014, averting an automatic 33 percent, $500 million tax increase that took effect on January 1.

Dan.WolfAssociated Industries of Massachusetts believes the Senate UI bill represents a constructive first step toward reforming the commonwealth’s burdensome system for paying benefits to jobless people. The association had hoped that the Senate would also reduce the maximum duration of benefit weeks from 30 to 26 and increase the time people must work before collecting benefits, but AIM expects to place those issues front and center when the reform moves to the House of Representatives.

“Senate President Therese Murray and Labor and Workforce Development Committee Chair Dan Wolf (right) deserve credit for taking a thoughtful and creative approach to a seemingly intractable problem. We don’t agree with everything in the bill, but it provides a basis for continuing debate,” said Richard C. Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer of AIM.

Under the Senate bill:

  • The wage base upon which UI payments are calculated would rise from the current $14,000 per year to $21,000 per year in 2015, a change that by itself would escalate costs for employers.
  • An expanded rate table would take effect in 2015, and rates would be set at a new Schedule C for 2015, Schedule A for 2016 and back to Schedule C for 2017. The expanded rate table should offset the effects of the increased wage base for companies with stable employment histories while raising rates for some companies that add and terminate workers frequently. Under the new rates, the most stable employers would pay $153 per employee per year, while the worst-rated companies would pay $2,337 per employee annually.
  • Company UI taxes rates will be based upon the average of three years payroll instead of one, minimizing rate shock for expanding companies or those that encounter cyclical economic problems and find themselves having to lay people off.
  • The definition of seasonal employment is expanded to 20 weeks of work, closing a loophole under which lawmakers say some people work seasonally and then collect Massachusetts unemployment benefits while living out of state during the winter.

“In effect, it’s revenue neutral in that we’ll collect the same amount in aggregate,” said Wolf, a Cape Cod Democrat.

Murray said in a statement: “The current system serves as a considerable burden to our businesses and it is time for change. This bill will alleviate costs for employers, provide predictability to their budgets and foster an environment where jobs can grow and be created.”

House Speaker Robert DeLeo has indicated that his chamber will consider Unemployment Insurance reform in tandem with an increase to the $8-per-hour state minimum wage. The Senate has already passed legislation increasing the minimum wage to $11 per hour over three years and indexing it to inflation thereafter.

The Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund used to pay jobless benefits in Massachusetts currently enjoys a healthy balance of approximately $800 million.

Massachusetts UI costs, driven by high wages, lenient qualification requirements and an overly generous benefit structure, are among the highest in the country. AIM has long supported reducing the maximum duration of benefit weeks from 30 to 26 when the state's economy is performing well and increasing the work requirement for eligibility to collect UI benefits from 30 times the weekly benefit amount to 40.

Topics: Minimum Wage, Massachusetts senate, Unemployment insurance

Senate Budget Omits Dangerous Contingent Contract Provision

Posted by Brad MacDougall on May 24, 2013 4:23:00 PM

Sometimes a budget is significant more for what it omits than what it includes.

Senate budgetThat’s the case with the $34 billion spending blueprint approved Thursday by the Massachusetts Senate, which wisely chose to pass its budget without a proposal to allow the Department of Revenue to hire outside tax auditors and pay them a portion of what they recover.

The budget proposal also replaces two existing health care assessments with a new Employer Responsibility levy and does way with the Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure (HIRD) form as Massachusetts prepares to replace its 2006 health care reform with the federal Affordable Care Act.

A conference committee will now hammer out differences between Senate and House versions of the budget for the Fiscal Year that begins July 1.

Senators adopted an amendment from Senator Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport, that struck the so-called “contingent contracts” provision that had been added to the budget in an outside section. Rodrigues noted on the Senate floor that the National Conference of State Legislators, the Securities and Exchange Commission and and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants all reject the use of contingent contracts.  

The AIM Taxation Committee had urged the Senate to reject the provision.  

“The proposal was bad public policy,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM.

“An auditor should have no financial stake in the outcome of an audit. The conflict of interest is readily apparent and should trouble policy makers concerned about tax fairness and Massachusetts reputation for its tax climate.”

The Senate budget represents a 4.2 percent spending increase over the current fiscal year. The document anticipates using between $500 million and $800 million in new taxes for transportation currently pending before a separate Beacon Hill conference Committee.

AIM has maintained throughout the debate that lawmakers should fund transportation improvements with transportation-specific sources of revenue rather than business taxes such as those proposed for computer software. The association nevertheless believes that the legislation passed by the House and Senate takes positive steps toward fixing the transportation system without crippling increases to the income tax or other broad-based levies.

The Senate budget includes a $50 per employee medical assistance assessment on employers that was filed by Governor Patrick and included in the House budget.  The new fee replaces the $67.20 Medical Security Trust Fund assessment.  The Senate did not support an AIM amendment to require legislative approval for any increases to the assessment and gives the authority to increase the fee up to 5 percent per year to a rate review board.

As part of the package for this new assessment, the Senate budget eliminates the fair-share contribution and the requirement that employee Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure forms be collected and retained by employers. 

Senators followed suit with the House in voting to postpone implementation of the so-called FAS 109 deduction instead of eliminating it as the administration proposed. FAS 109 is an accounting standard that requires that financial statements reflect the tax consequences of all book/tax differences. The deduction was adopted as part of the 2008 debate over adoption of combined tax reporting in Massachusetts.

Topics: Massachusetts state budget, Budget, Massachusetts senate, Issues, Taxes

Senate Passes Transportation Bill; Tax Debate Nears Resolution

Posted by Christopher Geehern on Apr 15, 2013 8:20:00 AM

The Massachusetts Senate approved a transportation funding bill Saturday that would dedicate approximately $800 million per year in new taxes and other revenue to roads, bridges and public transit by 2018.

TaxesThe Senate measure is larger than the $500 million package approved on April 8 by the House of Representatives, but still well below Governor Deval Patrick’s original proposal to raise $1.9 billion annually for transportation and education by raising the income tax and corporate taxes.  The governor praised the Senate bill on Saturday as a significant step toward a “safe, functional, modern transportation system to keep pace with a growing economy.”

Senators voted 30 to 5 to approve the same basic group of tax changes passed by the House - $110 million from increasing the gasoline tax 3 cents per gallon and then indexing the levy to inflation; $161 million from a tax on computer services; $110 million from tobacco taxes; and $83 million from changes to utility classification and sales sourcing.

The Senate bill adds revenue from several sources, including $40 million by requiring utility companies to pay for light poles and other structures on public rights of way, and $80 million by redirecting 2.5 cents per gallon from the gasoline tax currently earmarked for cleanup of underground storage tanks.

A conference committee will now hammer out differences between the two versions, but analysts expect the final measure to be closer to the Senate’s $800 million number. Governor Patrick had threatened to veto the House blueprint, but has not said directly whether he would sign a final bill with the Senate numbers.

Associated Industries of Massachusetts has maintained throughout the debate that lawmakers should fund transportation improvements with transportation-specific sources of revenue rather than business taxes such as the one on computer software. The association nevertheless believes that the legislation passed by the House and Senate takes positive steps toward fixing the transportation system without crippling increases to the income tax or other broad-based levies.

AIM also remains encouraged that both the House and Senate bills would require the MBTA and Department of Transportation to accelerate reasonable benchmarks for revenues, savings, and reforms. A menu of reforms approved in 2009 was supposed to generate $6.5 billion in savings over 20 years, but has so far reduced costs by just $500 million.

“Employers understand the need for Massachusetts to maintain a transportation infrastructure that supports economic growth. The Senate and House measures solve the immediate and long-term structural deficit of the state transportation system,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM.

The increase in the gasoline tax would cause an average driver to pay an additional $12 to $30 per year to fill the tank. The Legislature said it did not want to rely solely on increasing the gas tax because gas consumption has declined in recent years and is expected to continue to fall.

The plan would provide “forward funding” for regional transit authorities in 2014 and allow the Department of Transportation to move all employees onto the operating budget by 2016, ending the current practice of  paying for personnel with borrowed funds.

Information provided by the Legislature indicates that their proposal to apply the sales tax to software modifications and systems design does not impose taxes on cloud-based services such as remote data storage. Downloads of computer games, music and books would also remain outside the new sales tax.

Other elements of the Senate bill include:

  • A provision directing the Department of Transportation (DOT) to move towards open road tolling on major routes other than the Turnpike.
  • A commitment to transfer up to approximately $160 million per year from the general fund to the transportation fund in years beyond Fiscal 2018. 
  • A directive to the MBTA to pursue naming rights sales on its stations and other assets.

PriceWaterhouse Coopers Analysis of Business Taxes in Murray/DeLeo Plan

Ernst & Young Analysis of Tax on Computer Services

 

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Issues, Taxes, Transportation

Senate Advances Health Cost Bill; House Urged to Set Ambitious Goal

Posted by Kristen Lepore on May 18, 2012 7:38:00 AM

Two days after Governor Deval Patrick suggested that the health-care industry could slow the growth of medical spending below overall economic growth, the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill that sets a less ambitious objective of keeping health spending changes equal to economic output beginning in 2016.

Health Care CostsThe Senate voted 35 to 2 last night for a bill that leaders say will save $150 billion over 15 years by limiting health spending growth to 0.5 percentage points above gross state product from 2012-2015 and equal to GSP thereafter. The measure would create a quasi-public Health Care Quality and Finance Authority to monitor compliance with health cost objectives.

It would also require insurance companies and doctors to tell patients what the fee and final payment will be for a particular medical procedure. Massachusetts would raise more than $200 million over five years in assessments on insurance companies to fund wellness programs and electronic medical records.

The Senate cost-control bill now moves to the House of Representatives, which wants to slow health cost growth to half a percentage point below gross state product after three years.

AIM has set a far more aggressive cost-control target, calling upon the health care industry to reduce the growth of medical spending to two percentage points below overall state economic growth. The aggressive target is attainable for an industry where experts believe that $1 in every $3 is wasted because of care delivered in the wrong setting; marked by a lack of coordination; provided with an inadequate emphasis on prevention; harmed by medical errors; burdened with rules and fraud; or just plain excessive. 

Soaring health insurance premiums impede the ability of Massachusetts employers to grow and create economic opportunity for the citizens of the commonwealth.The average cost paid by employers and workers to insure a single Massachusetts family though a health maintenance organization now stands at $15,864, according to the 2012 AIM Benefits Survey. The cost to insure an individual is $6,000.

Patrick said earlier this week that “I think the industry can do better than GSP.” AIM agrees.  This is a once in a generation opportunity to pass a bill that will solve the state’s health care cost crisis.

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Health Care Costs, Issues

Subscribe to our blog

Browse by Tag