It is often said that budgets are about priorities: There are unlimited demands but only limited available resources. What you fund is what you think is most important.

When it comes to those things you choose not to fund, it must be that budget makers are less interested in them.

In New York’s recently approved budget one of the most notable areas that did not receive adequate assistance was the state’s independent colleges.

Historically, two of the biggest programs that provided support for independent (a.k.a. private) colleges was the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and Unrestricted Aid to Independent Colleges and Universities (known as “Bundy Aid”).

For decades, New York offered the neediest public college students assistance that covered full tuition through TAP at the State University of New York and the City University of New York. The program also offered an equal amount of assistance to students attending independent colleges.

However, starting in 2011, New York began to change TAP. During that year the maximum TAP award for the neediest college students was “frozen” as the state commenced raising public college tuition. The plan called on the public colleges to use their own resources to cover the difference between the maximum TAP award and the cost of public college tuition. However, in recent years the state has stepped in and covered the difference between TAP awards and public college tuition.

Students attending independent colleges and universities also are eligible for TAP and awards to those students were “frozen” too. Since TAP awards were frozen, those campuses also had to figure out ways to cover the financial assistance that would normally have come from the state’s TAP. But when it came to private colleges, the state never stepped in to change the situation.

Adding to that financial hit, New York State was cutting back its direct support of colleges in the independent sector as well.

Bundy Aid directs financial support to independent colleges. The program was established in 1968 with the goal of providing an answer to the question “how the State can help preserve the strength and vitality of our private and independent institutions of higher education and at the same time, keep them free.” In response, the state decided that “the moderate but real level of need calls for direct assistance from New York to private colleges and universities.”

Once a vital component of independent colleges’ finances, the program has been decimated by cuts over the past four decades. The peak state support occurred during the 1989-90 fiscal year, when nearly $114 million was appropriated. During the current fiscal year, that amount has been reduced to under $20 million. If New York had merely kept pace with inflation, the amount of Bundy Aid would be around $260 million – not less than $20 million.

During the budget battles this year, there was an effort to both increase the maximum TAP award to fully cover tuition in public colleges and to begin to restore funding to Bundy Aid.

Both failed. The final budget agreement kept the maximum TAP award at $5,665, well below tuition at the State University of New York ($7,070) and kept Bundy Aid below $20 million.

Obviously, state support of independent colleges has not been a budgetary priority.

The result? Not surprisingly, many colleges – usually small ones – have seen their finances become damaged or worse. According to New York education officials, over the last 18 years, New York has lost seventeen independent colleges, universities, and other degree-granting institutions. Ten of those seventeen shut their doors in only the last two years, throwing their students into educational uncertainty and potentially, entire communities into economic insecurity.

One recent example was the closure of the College of St. Rose in Albany, N.Y.

Last week, another financial warning was posted on a local independent college. Union College in Schenectady has fallen short in filling its freshman class for two years and is now pulling millions of dollars from its endowment to balance its budget. While there was no evidence of panic, it is an indication of a struggling sector. In a recent financial ranking of New York’s independent colleges, Union College had a positive grade, but well over a dozen more were listed as in financial trouble.

Why should we care?

The answer is that colleges not only educate the adult leaders of the future, but they are also dynamic “economic engines.” These economic engines create jobs that stimulate and anchor local economies. Independent colleges and universities in New York State contributed an estimated $97 billion to the state’s economy and supported more than 400,000 jobs. These institutions also provide cultural and educational resources to the larger community, contributing to the quality of life in the area.

We now know that New York’s elected leadership doesn’t consider the independent sector of higher education an important component of the budget. As independent campuses close and others struggle, New York’s decisions are costing jobs and economic activity. Here’s hoping next year’s budget reverses this not-so-benign neglect.

After weeks of debate, Governor Hochul and state lawmakers hammered out a budget deal – a full 38 days late, the latest agreement in 15 years. Despite the lateness, the governor has been barnstorming across the state touting her policy victories. The four most notable — changes to the evidence discovery process before criminal trials, changes that make it easier to confine individuals with suspected mental illness for psychiatric evaluation, additional penalties for wearing masks while committing crimes, and banning student cellphones in the classroom — had been the primary reasons for the budget delay.

The actual budget was more or less the same as the one that the governor advanced in January. The final budget was a bit more than the governor proposed – $254 billion or $2 billion more – but was a full 5 percent more than last year’s.

Given the immense size of the budget, it contains a lot of spending that is notable. As a result of how the governor conducts budget negotiations, there are a lot of “non-budget” policy changes included as well.

In terms of spending, the state’s new budget tackles a wide range of issues. New Yorkers will receive “inflation refund” checks projected to cost the state $2 billion — up to $200 for individuals, $400 for families — for middle-class New Yorkers.

The state will spend billions to pay off its Covid-era unemployment benefits debt owed to the federal government and increase unemployment benefits for the first time in six years.

In the area of higher education, the governor’s proposed “New York Opportunity Promise Scholarship,” was approved. That plan allows community college students aged 25 to 55 who do not have a college degree to attend community college for free if they enroll in certain programs within high-demand fields, such as technology, cybersecurity, nursing, and teaching.

The Legislature restored Governor Hochul’s proposed cuts to college opportunity programs, which provide assistance to educationally and economically disadvantaged students.

In the area of the environment, the final budget invested $1 billion in climate programs. That amount – while significant – was far less than the “cap and invest” program would have generated had it been allowed to proceed.

The state’s Environmental Protection Fund got a boost to $425 million this year, a $25 million increase. The budget continued the existing spending level of water infrastructure at $500 million.

The electric bus mandate was pushed back two years in the budget agreement, giving school districts more time to transition from fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.

The New York City mass transit system received revenues from the new budget. It included a payroll mobility tax hike on city companies with yearly payrolls of $10 million. New York City suburban areas businesses with big payrolls will see their rates go up too. The hikes — which will help pay for the $68 billion plan to modernize the MTA’s decaying trains, stations and infrastructure — follow the outlines revealed in a deal between the governor and state legislative leaders.

A myriad of other “non-budget” issues were loaded into the final budget agreement, many negotiated in secret. From making changes to how the state regulates religious schools’ compliance with education requirements to changes to the state’s public financing system, the budget was chock full of new measures.

The budget also delayed the state law that restricts the outside income of state legislators, allowing them to continue to “moonlight.” The budget included a change in how lieutenant governors are elected: From now on, there will be no primaries for that position; lieutenant gubernatorial candidates will run as one ticket with the political party’s candidate for governor as is done for president.

The budget gives the governor broad authority to make midyear budget cuts in order to respond to potential fiscal shortfalls resulting from federal budgetary changes that may result from actions by the President and the Congress. Similar powers were granted to then-Governor Cuomo during the Covid emergency, but the new language has some more rules in place. 

And the budget also includes a $10 million fund to pay the legal fees of state officials who are investigated by the Trump administration. Those covered include state workers who are implicated in a federal proceeding as a result of their job duties. In addition, it also applies to cases where a federal proceeding is “unrelated to the employee’s state employment or duties but is reasonably likely to have been commenced because of or in response to the employee’s state employment or exercise of their duties.”

The budget spends a lot and changes a lot of laws. Whether this budget will hold up to the realities of the upcoming year and was worth the waiting, only time will tell.

April showers bring May flowers, but so far New York State’s budget – due by April 1^st – is still not done. Despite an announcement last week by Governor Hochul that there was a budget agreement, things are not wrapped up and the hope is that a final budget will be put to bed this week.

Time will tell. No matter what though, it will be the latest budget agreement in 15 years.

What’s the reason for the late budget? Responsibility can be laid almost entirely at the feet of the governor. It was she that demanded agreements on four policy issues – which are not fundamentally budget items – that she thought were important. In addition, she advanced some of those measures late in March, almost guaranteeing that the budget would be late. It is a tactic that she has used in her previous budget negotiations.

Those four measures were the agreements that the governor was referring to last week. Apparently, she got what she wanted in her plans to change the discovery process before criminal trials, new changes that make it easier for police to confine a person for psychiatric evaluation if they suspect mentally illness, additional penalties for wearing masks while committing crimes, and banning student cellphones in the classroom.

According to the governor, she also got agreements on policies that are directly related to the budget: one-time tax rebate checks of $400 for families and $200 for single filers. The governor also announced that the final budget also will reduce the tax rate for middle-income and upper-middle-income families and increase the child tax credit to $1,000 per child under 4 years old, among items that were part of her “affordability agenda.”

Without the actual legislation to review, of course, there is no way of knowing what the details are for both the governor’s announced agreements and the myriad of other measures that will be part of a final spending plan of $254 billion.

In a budget that big, there are lots of other issues that have not been part of the public debate. These include critical measures that impact the state’s future – for example, how to make college more affordable and how to improve public participation in government.

In her original budget plan, Governor Hochul proposed cuts to the state’s successful college “opportunity programs,” at odds with her focus on affordability.

Opportunity programs, which are designed for educationally and economically disadvantaged students, have a steady track record of success in increasing retention and graduation rates among the most at-risk students – both in public colleges and in independent ones. These programs take a comprehensive approach to college access and affordability by building in academic counseling, mentoring, and often providing waivers for related costs such as transit, textbooks, and childcare.

SUNY senior college educational opportunity program students, for example, are more likely than the general student body to stay in college in their first year. The six-year graduation rate for those students is higher as well. Similar results exist for opportunity programs found in the independent sector. The same is true with the City University system. Will funding to those programs be restored?

Also, will the state enhance support for independent colleges? Last year, the budget cut state support for these important institutions. This year, the state Senate has restored that cut. What will the final budget agreement do?

Another underreported item is the collapse of local news reporting. The accelerating loss of local newspapers and other media outlets has had a devastating impact on civic life. Current projections show that the United States will have lost one-third of the newspapers that it had back in 2005.  And many of those that are surviving barely cling to life.

In our representative democracy, an informed electorate is fundamentally important to ensure that the system works.  Many Americans have unprecedented access to information, but with lives busier than ever, it’s very hard for citizens to fill the reporting and analysis void provided by local reporting.

Last year, New York included in its budget a tax credit to benefit local news outlets. That measure did not help local non-profit newsrooms – such a public radio stations. There are proposals to both include non-profits in that tax benefit as well as increase direct financial assistance. Given the importance of the press in our democracy – and the growing hostility to it nationally – will the final budget take steps to help secure their financial futures?

It’s possible that New Yorkers will know how these topics, and a long list of others, are addressed in the final budget agreement. But for future budgets, New Yorkers should make sure that lawmakers know that getting their work done on-time – like meeting the state’s legal deadline of April 1^st – is important and we expect them to do it.

Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are reportedly finally moving towards finalizing a state budget. Once that work is complete, the Legislature’s attention will be debating “non-budget” bills between now and the scheduled end of the session on June 12^th.

One of those issues should be what to do about New York’s mounting trash crisis.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Americans now generate twice as much waste as they did 50 years ago. What to do with the trash that we all produce? Right now, the number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is burning; and the last is to be recycled. There is no evidence that the problem is getting better. In fact, the state’s residential recycling rate has been dropping over the past decade.

The state’s capacity to tackle this problem is dwindling. Again according to the DEC, “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.”

If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? At the end of 2023, the state Department of Environmental Conservation issued its “New York State Solid Waste Management Plan” to tackle that emerging problem. Among its recommendations, the DEC highlighted the need for a “producer responsibility” approach and urged action to, among other things, expand the state’s bottle deposit law and reduce packaging wastes.

Those two legislative proposals are actively under consideration in Albany.

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (PRRIA) legislation will reduce plastic packaging to dramatically reduce waste, as well as phase out some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging; improve recyclability of packaging; and slash greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic. It will also make polluters pay by establishing a modest fee on packaging paid by packaging producers, generating new revenue to help defray waste costs for local taxpayers.

As a result it will save taxpayers money.

A new report from Beyond Plastics estimates that New Yorkers could save around $100 million annually if the PRRIA is adopted. The report outlines substantial cost savings, reduced packaging waste, and higher recycling rates from adoption of the bill into law.

Legislation has also been introduced to expand the Bottle Deposit Law. That’s the law that requires a nickel deposit on certain carbonated beverages and bottled water. When you return the container, you get your nickel back. The Bottle Law has been the most successful litter reduction and recycling program in New York history. The DEC describes it as a “tremendous success.” When the law kicked in 40 years ago in 1983, carbonated beverage containers were found everywhere; now the overwhelming majority of these containers are redeemed under the program. But many beverages – most notably non-carbonated sports drinks – didn’t exist four decades ago and are not covered by the law today.

Expanding the law will also save taxpayers money.

According to a new report by the think tank Eunomia, the state’s local governments could save as much as $108 million annually if lawmakers approved the “Bigger Better Bottle Bill,” legislation designed to modernize the four-decade-old law. 

Enacting both proposals would not only help municipalities’ bottom lines – they total $200 million annually – the state would get some new revenue too. According to an analysis done earlier this year, New York State could see as much as $100 million in increased revenue if the Bottle Bill legislation is approved.

The plans to improve the Bottle Bill and establish the PRRIA got a boost last week, when the Siena College Research Institute poll found overwhelming public support for requiring packaging manufacturers to be responsible for their products (required under the PRRIA bill) as well as increasing the bottle deposit from a nickel to a dime (it’s been a nickel since 1983) with majorities of New York Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters all supporting.

The advocates calling for these measures are trying to turn DEC plans into actions – actions that must be taken now in order to reduce the state’s trash problem. You only have to look at the worsening climate to see what happens when policymakers don’t act. This year, lawmakers should act and turn those cans and other packaging wastes into cash as well as to make headway combating the growing trash threat.

The President continues his unprecedented blizzard of executive orders (now numbering at least 129). One of interest last week was an executive order designed to reduce the cost of care for seniors. Primarily focused on the cost of prescription drugs, deep inside the order was a proposal to limit “a shift in drug administration volume away from less costly physician office settings to more expensive hospital outpatient departments.”

The order touches on a growing debate over the pricing of health care and the effort to establish “site neutral” health care payments. 

Here is the background: The amount charged for medical procedures or services can depend as much on where they are performed as on the type of procedure or service provided.  All else being equal, a procedure in a hospital is much more expensive than that same procedure done in a freestanding facility like a physician’s office or a clinic. The higher cost is meant to support a hospital’s more complex infrastructure, staffing and other expenses. 

However, these higher prices are being charged for services provided at non-hospital locations, which often operate at less expense.  That’s in large part because hospitals are buying up private practices, clinics, imaging centers and labs, using them effectively as a “cash cow” to charge more.  Once acquired, these facilities often begin using the hospital billing code to charge hospital prices for services that were previously less expensive.  When acquired by a hospital, physician practices charge about 14 percent more than when they were independent. That means patients and insurers begin to pay more for the same services. The only difference is that the non-hospital facility is owned by a hospital and begins to use the hospital billing code. And over half of physicians now work for hospitals and health systems. 

As a result, patients, Medicare, and health insurance companies are paying higher prices for care than they otherwise would. For example, Medicare pays twice as much for procedures done in hospital-owned facilities as they would for those done in independent physicians’ offices. And for many patients, high deductibles and co-insurance policies mean that they may face a financial hit as well.

The “site neutral” approach requires that Medicare procedures and services are delivered at the same price regardless of the location, whether it’s a hospital, doctor’s office, imaging center or clinic.  This would result in significant savings for consumers, employers and taxpayers. Decreased Medicare spending as a result of “site neutral” policies could save taxpayers $150 billion.

Saving that much money could help the Congress address its budget plans. The potential savings drove the House of Representatives to approve legislation that contained a “site neutral” provision. In the U.S. Senate, Republican Senator Cassidy and Democratic Senator Hassan have released a legislative framework for a “site neutral” payment policy.  The President’s more limited proposal could trigger the making of a deal on the issue.

Here in New York, a similar approach is gaining steam.

The Fair Pricing Act has been introduced to advance a “site-neutral” approach to commercial health plans. The Act requires that low complexity, routine, medical procedures would have their prices capped at no more than 150% of Medicare to lower health benefit expenses for payers while making healthcare more affordable for
patients. By reducing the cost disparities between hospitals and independent facilities, patients won’t be financially penalized for where they receive care, and employers and taxpayers will face less expense.

For patients paying significant out-of-pocket medical costs—like the uninsured, the underinsured, and others with coinsurance or high-deductible expenses—the Act limits their financial exposure. Onerous facility
fees including any additional charges for routine office visits, basic diagnostic tests, or minor outpatient procedures, would also be prohibited under the bill. Transparency through data reporting and public availability of hospital-pricing information will further ensure patients make informed decisions on healthcare for themselves and their
families. Publicly accessible pricing data allows patients to compare the costs of procedures and services across hospitals, independent clinics, and other providers. This helps ensure they can choose care options that best fit their financial situation and medical needs.

Every patient deserves fair priced care and has the right to be protected from sticker shock for medical services such as clinic visits, vaccines, and imaging procedures. These are among the many routine procedures New Yorkers experience every day that are threatened by unsustainable increases in healthcare costs. “Site-neutral” pricing ensures that patients will not be burdened by unsustainable pricing disparities. It’s time for federal and state policymakers to act.