DATA SHOW VOICE COMPETITION GAINING IN ALL STATES By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DATA SHOW VOICE COMPETITION GAINING IN ALL STATES By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis"

Transcription

1 RESEARCH BRIEF DECEMBER 17, 2013 DATA SHOW VOICE COMPETITION GAINING IN ALL STATES By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis USTelecom analysis of state-by-state data show competition for voice services is significant and gaining ground across all of the states. This research updates previous USTelecom state voice competition analyses 1 and quantifies household shares for wireless and landline alternatives to voice service from traditional providers using the legacy switched landline phone network. It complements a recent USTelecom analysis of national-level voice competition with more granular state detail. Both analyses estimate the portion of households that chose either to disconnect landline service altogether and go wireless-only, or to use alternative landline services, especially cable telephony and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). 2 The state analysis provides more evidence that it is time for federal and state governments to address Internet Protocol (IP) transition issues, including USTelecom s petition to the FCC to find that traditional switched voice providers, known as incumbent local exchange carriers (s), are no longer dominant providers of voice communications. This state-level analysis includes new historical time series estimates from year-end 2008 through year-end 2011 based on the most current available wireless data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and corresponding wireline competition data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 3 Nationwide, USTelecom estimated that 60 percent of U.S. telephone households received their primary voice connection via switched service at year-end 2008, falling to 39 percent at year-end USTelecom further projects that this figure will fall to 26 percent by year-end While the most current state data are available only through 2011, it is very likely that state-level trends are, in varying degree, in line with the national trend of declining switched shares. 4 Table 1 shows competitive voice shares as a percent of U.S. households by state from 2008 to The data underscore that a large portion of households in all states had already shifted to alternatives to switched services by the end of 2011, with competition likely gaining share in most or all states in recent years. 1 USTelecom previously published an analysis of state-level data in 2011 and May Those analyses are not directly comparable to this new state analysis due to methodological upgrades made to maximize the consistency between the current state and national analyses. The differences are discussed in detail in Appendix B - A. 2 Interconnected VoIP is a term defined by the FCC to include VoIP services that can send and receive calls to and from the public switched telephone network. It includes Internet phone services such as Vonage and most cable telephony, but excludes computer to computer IP telephony services such as Skype or FaceTime. Throughout the remainder of this Research Brief, VoIP means interconnected VoIP. 3 CDC provides data through mid-year Estimates to year-end 2011 are straight-line. The FCC has provided actual data for year-end This state-level analysis does not contain state-by-state share projections through It is very likely that all or most states are following the national trend of declining shares. See Appendix B - Technical Notes. 1

2 For 2008 and 2011, Table 1 shows the estimated portion of telephone households in three categories based on how they receive their primary telephone service: switched landlines; landlines other than switched; and wireless-only. The three categories sum to 100 percent of telephone households. 5 The last set of columns shows the change in percentage points for each of these categories during the three year period from 2008 to The states are ranked by switched share in 2011, from lowest to highest. The range statistics at the bottom of the table are shown from low to high for switched, and high to low for the other categories, so that within each column, the top row shows the state with the largest shift away from traditional landline voice services, and vice versa. Detailed data by state are available in Appendix A - State Details. Among the states, 6 the switched portion ranged from 28 percent at the low end to 51 percent at the high end at the close of The figures for 2011 reported here have likely declined even further in the last two years, in line with national trends. As noted above, switched share at the national level has been projected to fall from 39 percent at the end of 2011 to 26 percent by the end The median switched portion was 37 percent. Only one of the 46 states for which data were available, Hawaii, had switched share greater than 50 percent; and even its 51 percent share for 2011 was lower than AT&T s long distance share when the FCC found in the mid-1990s that it was no longer a dominant provider of long distance. Four-fifths of states had switched household shares of 41 percent or less in Contrast these 2011 figures with 2008, just three years earlier, when switched services were being used by 44 percent to 71 percent of telephone households; the median switched share was 58 percent; and 38 of the 46 states examined had switched shares greater than 50 percent. 8 From 2008 to 2011, the median state saw the share of households using switched service decline by 22 percentage points, an average of more than seven percentage points per year. Four-fifths of states saw a decline of at least 17 percentage points. With continuing losses in recent years, it is clear that in the switched service has gone from a majority to a small and shrinking minority of households across the country. 5 These categories correspond to USTelecom s November 22, 2013 national voice competition analysis. Percentages are given as a share of telephone households. At the national level approximately 98 percent of households are telephone households and 2 percent have no telephone. 6 The analysis includes 46 states technically, 45 states and the District of Columbia. It excludes five states because data were not available from either the FCC (Alaska missing in both 2008 and 2011) or CDC (Iowa, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming missing in 2011). See Appendix B - Technical Notes for additional details. 7 The state switched figures exclude VoIP. This is consistent with the high-level national shares cited, which are for switched services only. The general observations would not change if VoIP were included with switched service; however, VoIP does play a greater role in some states relative to others. See Appendix B - Technical Notes for a detailed discussion of VoIP. 8 The four states missing 2011 CDC data did have 2008 CDC data. Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming had estimated switched shares greater than 50 percent in CDC does report less statistically significant data, i.e. estimates with greater margins of error, for these four states in mid Projections to year-end are not possible. Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming had less than 50 percent switched share in mid-2011, and Iowa had about 51 percent, likely trending to 50 percent or less by year-end. So, taking these figures into consideration, 42 of 50 states had shares greater than 50 percent as of year-end 2008 and only one, maybe two, of 50 states had switched shares greater than 50 percent as of year-end

3 Table 1: Estimated State Competitive Voice Shares (Percent of U.S. Telephone Households, Year-End 2008 Year-End 2011) Change Other Than Other Than Other Than States Ranked by Share Only Only Only MI 48% 26% 26% 28% 31% 41% -20% 5% 15% AZ 44% 29% 27% 29% 27% 43% -15% -2% 17% DC 58% 17% 25% 30% 19% 51% -28% 1% 27% MA 54% 32% 15% 32% 44% 25% -22% 12% 10% NH 56% 29% 14% 32% 40% 28% -25% 11% 14% FL 56% 18% 25% 32% 29% 39% -24% 10% 14% RI 44% 45% 10% 33% 50% 18% -12% 4% 7% KS 49% 24% 27% 33% 25% 43% -16% 0% 16% NE 46% 23% 31% 33% 23% 44% -13% 0% 13% NJ 57% 32% 11% 33% 48% 19% -24% 15% 8% NV 57% 22% 20% 33% 26% 41% -24% 3% 21% NY 50% 34% 15% 34% 43% 23% -17% 9% 8% AR 57% 9% 34% 34% 16% 50% -23% 7% 16% OK 49% 23% 28% 34% 27% 40% -15% 4% 11% OR 56% 17% 27% 34% 22% 44% -23% 6% 17% DE 60% 25% 15% 34% 35% 31% -26% 10% 17% WA 56% 21% 23% 34% 28% 38% -22% 7% 15% CO 53% 17% 30% 34% 22% 44% -19% 5% 13% UT 60% 18% 22% 35% 22% 43% -26% 4% 21% TX 56% 13% 30% 35% 19% 45% -21% 6% 15% IL 58% 19% 23% 36% 27% 38% -23% 8% 15% CT 60% 29% 11% 36% 42% 21% -24% 13% 11% TN 59% 14% 27% 37% 22% 41% -22% 8% 14% GA 59% 17% 24% 37% 23% 40% -21% 6% 16% MS 57% 9% 34% 37% 14% 48% -19% 5% 15% WI 58% 20% 22% 38% 24% 38% -20% 3% 17% ID 61% 9% 30% 38% 12% 50% -23% 3% 20% MD 63% 21% 16% 38% 31% 31% -25% 10% 15% OH 56% 21% 23% 38% 23% 39% -18% 2% 16% ND 47% 22% 30% 39% 15% 46% -8% -7% 15% SC 61% 15% 24% 39% 19% 42% -22% 4% 18% NC 59% 17% 24% 39% 22% 38% -20% 6% 14% LA 60% 17% 23% 39% 23% 38% -21% 6% 15% MN 58% 17% 25% 40% 24% 37% -19% 6% 12% IN 62% 14% 24% 40% 23% 37% -23% 9% 14% AL 64% 13% 23% 41% 20% 39% -23% 6% 16% VA 57% 21% 22% 41% 28% 31% -15% 6% 9% KY 50% 19% 32% 42% 21% 37% -8% 2% 6% CA 66% 18% 16% 42% 25% 33% -24% 8% 16% ME 60% 18% 23% 42% 21% 36% -18% 4% 14% PA 66% 18% 15% 44% 29% 28% -23% 10% 12% MO 69% 12% 20% 44% 18% 38% -24% 6% 19% VT 68% 13% 19% 44% 21% 35% -24% 8% 16% NM 66% 7% 27% 46% 12% 43% -21% 5% 16% WV 71% 11% 18% 49% 21% 30% -22% 10% 12% HI 66% 16% 17% 51% 20% 29% -15% 3% 12% AK n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IA 28% 72% 57% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a MT 19% 81% 64% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SD 14% 86% 53% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a WY 22% 78% 57% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ranges and Averages Low (High) 44% 45% 34% 28% 50% 51% -28% 15% 27% 20th (80th) Percentile 53% 24% 27% 33% 29% 43% -24% 9% 17% Median 58% 18% 23% 37% 23% 38% -22% 6% 15% 80th (20th) Percentile 62% 14% 16% 41% 20% 31% -17% 3% 12% High (Low) 71% 7% 10% 51% 12% 18% -8% -7% 6% Sources: CDC, FCC, Census, USTelecom analysis. AK, IA, MT, SD, WY excluded after 2011 Ranges are lowto-high for switched and high-to-low for wireless-only and landlines other than switched. 3

4 The data emphasize that one must assess switched share losses holistically, looking at the combined impact of wireline and wireless alternatives. It is insufficient to examine either in isolation. As of 2011, among the states, anywhere from 12 percent (New Mexico and Idaho) to 51 percent (Rhode Island) of telephone households had chosen a landline alternative to switched service, with a median of 23 percent. -only households ranged from 18 percent (Rhode Island) to 51 percent (District of Columbia). Yet, in no state was the combined share of wireless and landline alternatives to switched service less than 49 percent of households. This is because the dynamic and the relative significance of wireline and wireless competition vary across the states. The real competitive impact on s is measured by the combined losses to both wireline and wireless competitors. Thus, there are a number of states with a high ranking on landline alternatives, a low ranking on wireless-only and a high ranking for alternatives to switched service overall. Examples include many states ranked highly for total competitive share, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York. On the other hand, some states are ranked low in wireline alternatives, high in wireless-only households and highly ranked for alternatives to switched service overall, such as the District of Columbia, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska and Oregon. In fact, some of the states ranked lowest for landline alternatives are ranked among the highest for wireless-only households, such as Texas, Mississippi, Idaho and North Dakota. There are also several states ranked highly for alternatives overall, with moderately strong rankings in both wireline and wireless alternatives. Examples include Michigan, Arizona, Florida and Nevada. Again, the figures are for year-end 2011 and there may have been shifts in the last couple years as the level of competition has risen overall. Regardless, relative rankings are less important in assessing competitiveness since even the lowest ranked states appear to have significant levels of competitive share on an absolute basis. Moreover, this household share analysis is a conservative method of assessing competitiveness for several reasons. First, with the focus on wireless-only households, the analysis treats any household with a landline as being fully in the landline category, ignoring dual wireline and wireless usage, especially wireless-mostly usage. 9 Second, this voice share analysis ignores communications alternatives other than interconnected voice, such as , text messaging, computer to computer IP telephony, video chat and social networking. USTelecom has documented the extent of adoption of these alternatives in 2011; however, measuring and analyzing the competitive impacts of non-voice alternatives is very difficult at the national, let alone state level. Therefore, this analysis is limited to more easily-measured landline and wireless voice calling options. 9 -mostly households are those CDC identifies as having both landlines and wireless telephones but receiving all or most calls via wireless. For example, at the national level USTelecom projects that by year-end 2013 about 45 percent of telephone households will be wireless-only, another 55 percent will have landlines, of which between 45 percent and 50 percent will also have wireless phones, and more than 15 percent of those will be wireless-mostly. Allocating wireless-mostly households in proportion to share of landlines, switched but wireless-mostly would represent about 7 percent of households (47 percent of landlines times 15 percent) and an estimated 19 percent households in 2013 would be switched using wireline mostly. The corresponding national figure for year-end 2011 would be about 30 percent. Among the states, in 2011, this figure ranged from 21 percent to 41 percent with a median of 27 percent. See Appendix A - State Details, Table A1. 4

5 To summarize, at the end of 2011 the maximum household share for switched service in any state was 51 percent, the median was 37 percent and four-fifths of all states had an switched share of no more than 41 percent. Since 2011, s have continued to lose household share at a rapid pace. Since 2008, households using switched telephone service have gone from a slim majority of homes to a small and shrinking minority. These figures reflect a conservative approach since they describe only complete substitution of wireless for landlines. When taking into consideration the additional households that had both switched service and wireless phones but mostly used wireless phones, the share of households that used switched service exclusively or mostly ranged from 21 percent to 41 percent, with a median of 27 percent. Considering this state-level voice competition data, as well as the growing prevalence and popularity of non-voice communications options, it is increasingly clear that s are no longer dominant in the provision of switched voice communications services. 5

6 Appendix A - State Details This Appendix contains three tables showing state-by-state voice household shares. Data are included for year-end 2011 (Table A1), mid-year 2011 (Table A2), and year-end 2008 (Table A3). Mid-year 2011 data are included because CDC provides actual estimates that reflect midyear 2011 and the year-end 2011 estimates for wireless-only households are based on straightline projections. Actual FCC data were available for year-end 2011, but since the estimates are derived from both FCC and CDC data sets, the mid-2011 data reflect actual data from both without any projections. So, while the data in Table A2 are older by six months, there is less estimation involved. Each table shows eight columns of data for each state. All data are given as a percentage of telephone households. At the national level, approximately 98 percent of households have telephones and 2 percent do not. At the state level, no-telephone households range from 1 percent to 4 percent with a median of 2 percent. In each table below, the first two columns show wireless-only and landline households, which sum to 100 percent. The next two columns show landline households broken down into switched and landlines other than switched. The next two columns break landlines other than switched into two further subcategories: non- landlines, which include both non- VoIP lines and non- switched lines; and VoIP landlines. 10 The next column contains wireless-mostly households. 11 The last column shows an estimate of switched households that switched service either exclusively or mostly. 12 At the bottom of each table are statistics showing ranges and averages for each column: the high, low, median, 20 th percentile and 80 th percentile. The median is a type of average, technically the figure here percentage of households at which half of states are above and half below. High and low scores are self-explanatory. Percentiles are interpreted as follows: within each column the 80 th percentile means four-fifths of states have percentage household shares at or below that percentage, down to the lowest percentage; the 20 th percentile means onefifth of states have percentage household shares at or below that percentage, down to the lowest percentage. 10 Most non- lines are VoIP, largely cable telephone customers. There are some states where switched landlines represent a large portion landline competition. These include states like Arizona, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Some cable companies, such as Cox, still use switches deployed before VoIP became widely available. 11 -mostly is a CDC term defined as households that have both wireline and wireless phones but receive most or all calls on their wireless phones The A household share reported by CDC is adjusted to reflect share of telephone households. 12 -mostly households include both switched and other than switched households. Therefore, when adding wireless-mostly households to other measures of competitive share, it is necessary to add only the portion attributable to the. Otherwise, it would double count the portion that is attributable to alternatives, which are already included in the competitive share measure. The best approach is to allocate wireless-mostly households in proportion to switched share of landline households in each state. Note: it is possible to do this calculation to include VoIP, but such calculations are not included here. A-1

7 The range statistics are ordered differently so that the top rows reflect the greatest shift away from traditional landline voice service. Thus, the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh columns showing gains by alternatives to switched service are ordered from high-tolow. The second, third and eighth columns showing landline and households are presented from low-to-high. For the wireless-only and other than switched columns, the 20 th percentile can be especially insightful if it represents a significant share of households. This would indicate that most states the four-fifths above that level have seen significant shifts to competitive alternatives. For example, in Table A1 the 20 th percentile for wireless-only is 31 percent, which indicates that the bottom one-fifth of households had 31 percent or fewer wireless-only homes, down to the low of 18 percent. But, the other four-fifths of households had 31 percent or more households with wireless-only, up to the high of 51 percent. Similarly, for the switched columns, if the 80 th percentile is a low percentage, it would indicate that four-fifths of states have lower switched shares. Thus, in 2011, fourth-fifths of states had switched household shares of 41 percent or less, down to the low of 28 percent. The analysis covers only the years 2008 to 2011 due to certain data limitations. In particular, CDC provides a time series of state-level data reflecting mid-year 2007 to mid-year 2011 for wireless-only households. 13 The FCC has published actual data through year-end The FCC provides state-level local telephone competition data going back to the late 1990s through year-end 2012; however, before year-end 2008, the FCC data do not contain the breakdowns necessary for this analysis. Therefore it is necessary to limit the analysis to 2008 on one end and 2011 on the other. 13 For other figures, such as wireless-mostly and no-telephone households, data are available only for the most recent period covered in the CDC releases. As a result, data reflecting wireless-mostly and no-telephone households for mid-year 2011 and year-end 2009 were used as proxies for year-end 2011 and year-end 2008, respectively. There is not much volatility in wireless-mostly and no-telephone households over time, so the results will not be skewed. A-2

8 Table A1: Estimated State Competitive Voice Shares (Percent of U.S. Telephone Households, Year-End 2011) State Only Other Than Non- VoIP but Mostly (Mid 2011) Less Allocated Mostly AL 39% 61% 41% 20% 18% 2% 13% 32% AK 36% 64% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AZ 43% 57% 29% 27% 27% 0% 15% 22% AR 50% 50% 34% 16% 14% 2% 15% 23% CA 33% 67% 42% 25% 21% 4% 18% 30% CO 44% 56% 34% 22% 22% 0% 17% 24% CT 21% 79% 36% 42% 36% 6% 15% 29% DE 31% 69% 34% 35% 28% 7% 17% 25% DC 51% 49% 30% 19% 17% 2% 15% 21% FL 39% 61% 32% 29% 24% 4% 16% 24% GA 40% 60% 37% 23% 20% 3% 20% 25% HI 29% 71% 51% 20% 20% 0% 14% 41% ID 50% 50% 38% 12% 12% 0% 13% 28% IL 38% 62% 36% 27% 23% 4% 17% 26% IN 37% 63% 40% 23% 20% 3% 15% 30% IA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a KS 43% 57% 33% 25% 22% 2% 14% 25% KY 37% 63% 42% 21% 20% 1% 16% 31% LA 38% 62% 39% 23% 21% 2% 15% 30% ME 36% 64% 42% 21% 21% 0% 11% 35% MD 31% 69% 38% 31% 22% 9% 18% 28% MA 25% 75% 32% 44% 38% 6% 17% 24% MI 41% 59% 28% 31% 27% 4% 14% 21% MN 37% 63% 40% 24% 24% 0% 17% 29% MS 48% 52% 37% 14% 13% 1% 12% 29% MO 38% 62% 44% 18% 13% 4% 16% 33% MT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a NE 44% 56% 33% 23% 23% 0% 14% 25% NV 41% 59% 33% 26% 25% 1% 19% 23% NH 28% 72% 32% 40% 40% 0% 14% 26% NJ 19% 81% 33% 48% 41% 7% 23% 24% NM 43% 57% 46% 12% 12% 0% 14% 35% NY 23% 77% 34% 43% 39% 4% 17% 26% NC 38% 62% 39% 22% 21% 1% 12% 32% ND 46% 54% 39% 15% 15% 0% 9% 33% OH 39% 61% 38% 23% 21% 2% 17% 28% OK 40% 60% 34% 27% 25% 2% 20% 22% OR 44% 56% 34% 22% 22% 0% 13% 26% PA 28% 72% 44% 29% 25% 4% 16% 34% RI 18% 82% 33% 50% 41% 9% 19% 25% SC 42% 58% 39% 19% 17% 2% 15% 29% SD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TN 41% 59% 37% 22% 20% 2% 16% 27% TX 45% 55% 35% 19% 14% 5% 18% 24% UT 43% 57% 35% 22% 22% 0% 14% 26% VT 35% 65% 44% 21% 21% 0% 10% 38% VA 31% 69% 41% 28% 22% 6% 21% 29% WA 38% 62% 34% 28% 28% 0% 19% 24% WV 30% 70% 49% 21% 21% 0% 11% 41% WI 38% 62% 38% 24% 21% 3% 11% 31% WY n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ranges and Averages High (Low) 51% 82% 28% 50% 41% 9% 23% 21% 20th (80th) Percentile 43% 69% 33% 29% 27% 4% 18% 24% Median 38% 62% 37% 23% 22% 2% 15% 27% 80th (20th) Percentile 31% 57% 41% 20% 18% 0% 13% 32% Low (High) 18% 49% 51% 12% 12% 0% 9% 41% Source: Federal Communications Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Census and USTelecom Analysis. Percentages rounded. Year-end 2011 is straight-line projection from mid-year Ranges are high-to-low except for second, third and eighth columns, which are low-to-high. A-3

9 Table A2: Estimated State Competitive Voice Shares (Percent of U.S. Telephone Households, Mid-Year 2011) State Only Other Than Non- VoIP but Mostly Less Allocated Mostly AL 37% 63% 44% 19% 18% 2% 13% 35% AK 32% 68% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AZ 41% 59% 31% 28% 28% 0% 17% 22% AR 48% 52% 40% 12% 11% 2% 17% 27% CA 30% 70% 46% 24% 21% 3% 20% 33% CO 41% 59% 38% 21% 21% 0% 19% 26% CT 20% 80% 40% 41% 35% 5% 17% 31% DE 29% 71% 39% 33% 27% 5% 19% 28% DC 48% 52% 34% 18% 17% 1% 16% 24% FL 37% 63% 36% 27% 24% 3% 18% 26% GA 37% 63% 41% 22% 19% 2% 22% 27% HI 28% 72% 53% 19% 19% 0% 16% 42% ID 48% 52% 40% 12% 12% 0% 14% 29% IL 35% 65% 39% 25% 22% 4% 18% 28% IN 35% 65% 38% 27% 23% 4% 16% 28% IA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a KS 41% 59% 35% 25% 22% 2% 16% 26% KY 36% 64% 45% 19% 19% 1% 17% 32% LA 36% 64% 41% 23% 22% 2% 17% 30% ME 34% 66% 45% 21% 21% 0% 12% 37% MD 28% 72% 44% 27% 21% 6% 20% 32% MA 23% 77% 36% 41% 37% 4% 19% 27% MI 38% 62% 31% 31% 27% 4% 16% 23% MN 34% 66% 45% 20% 20% 0% 19% 32% MS 46% 54% 41% 14% 13% 1% 14% 31% MO 35% 65% 48% 17% 13% 4% 18% 35% MT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a NE 41% 59% 35% 24% 24% 0% 16% 26% NV 37% 63% 36% 26% 25% 1% 21% 24% NH 25% 75% 35% 40% 40% 0% 15% 28% NJ 18% 82% 38% 44% 39% 5% 25% 26% NM 39% 61% 50% 11% 11% 0% 15% 37% NY 21% 79% 37% 42% 39% 3% 18% 28% NC 35% 65% 43% 22% 21% 1% 13% 34% ND 44% 56% 40% 15% 15% 0% 10% 33% OH 36% 64% 41% 23% 21% 2% 19% 29% OK 37% 63% 36% 27% 26% 1% 23% 23% OR 41% 59% 37% 22% 22% 0% 15% 28% PA 25% 75% 48% 27% 24% 3% 17% 37% RI 16% 84% 36% 48% 43% 5% 21% 27% SC 39% 61% 43% 19% 17% 1% 16% 31% SD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TN 38% 62% 41% 21% 19% 2% 18% 29% TX 43% 57% 39% 18% 14% 4% 20% 26% UT 40% 60% 40% 21% 21% 0% 15% 30% VT 31% 69% 49% 21% 21% 0% 11% 41% VA 29% 71% 46% 25% 22% 3% 23% 31% WA 36% 64% 37% 27% 27% 0% 21% 25% WV 28% 72% 52% 20% 20% 0% 13% 43% WI 36% 64% 40% 24% 21% 3% 13% 32% WY n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ranges and Averages High (Low) 48% 84% 31% 48% 43% 6% 25% 22% 20th (80th) Percentile 41% 72% 36% 27% 27% 4% 20% 26% Median 36% 64% 40% 23% 21% 2% 17% 29% 80th (20th) Percentile 28% 59% 45% 19% 18% 0% 15% 33% Low (High) 16% 52% 53% 11% 11% 0% 10% 43% Source: Federal Communications Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Census and USTelecom Analysis. Percentages rounded. Ranges are high-to-low except for second, third and eighth columns, which are low-to-high. A-4

10 Table A3: Estimated State Competitive Voice Shares (Percent of U.S. Telephone Households, Year-End 2008) State Only Other Than Non- VoIP but Mostly Less Allocated Mostly AL 23% 77% 64% 13% 13% 0% 14% 52% AK 20% 80% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AZ 27% 73% 44% 29% 29% 0% 19% 32% AR 34% 66% 57% 9% 9% 0% 16% 43% CA 16% 84% 66% 18% 17% 0% 21% 49% CO 30% 70% 53% 17% 17% 0% 16% 41% CT 11% 89% 60% 29% 28% 2% 15% 50% DE 15% 85% 60% 25% 25% 0% 18% 47% DC 25% 75% 58% 17% 17% 0% 17% 45% FL 25% 75% 56% 18% 18% 0% 17% 44% GA 24% 76% 59% 17% 17% 0% 20% 44% HI 17% 83% 66% 16% 16% 0% 18% 52% ID 30% 70% 61% 9% 9% 0% 15% 47% IL 23% 77% 58% 19% 19% 1% 18% 45% IN 24% 76% 62% 14% 13% 1% 15% 50% IA 28% 72% 57% 14% 14% 0% 17% 44% KS 27% 73% 49% 24% 24% 1% 13% 40% KY 32% 68% 50% 19% 19% 0% 14% 39% LA 23% 77% 60% 17% 17% 0% 17% 47% ME 23% 77% 60% 18% 17% 0% 12% 51% MD 16% 84% 63% 21% 21% 0% 22% 47% MA 15% 85% 54% 32% 32% 0% 15% 44% MI 26% 74% 48% 26% 25% 1% 16% 38% MN 25% 75% 58% 17% 17% 0% 16% 46% MS 34% 66% 57% 9% 9% 0% 15% 44% MO 20% 80% 69% 12% 12% 0% 16% 55% MT 19% 81% 64% 17% 17% 0% 14% 53% NE 31% 69% 46% 23% 23% 0% 17% 35% NV 20% 80% 57% 22% 22% 0% 15% 47% NH 14% 86% 56% 29% 29% 0% 14% 48% NJ 11% 89% 57% 32% 32% 0% 22% 43% NM 27% 73% 66% 7% 7% 0% 12% 55% NY 15% 85% 50% 34% 34% 0% 14% 42% NC 24% 76% 59% 17% 17% 0% 16% 46% ND 30% 70% 47% 22% 22% 0% 10% 41% OH 23% 77% 56% 21% 20% 0% 18% 44% OK 28% 72% 49% 23% 22% 0% 17% 37% OR 27% 73% 56% 17% 17% 0% 15% 45% PA 15% 85% 66% 18% 18% 0% 17% 53% RI 10% 90% 44% 45% 45% 0% 17% 36% SC 24% 76% 61% 15% 15% 0% 19% 46% SD 14% 86% 53% 33% 33% 0% 9% 47% TN 27% 73% 59% 14% 14% 0% 17% 45% TX 30% 70% 56% 13% 13% 0% 21% 40% UT 22% 78% 60% 18% 18% 0% 14% 49% VT 19% 81% 68% 13% 13% 0% 16% 55% VA 22% 78% 57% 21% 21% 0% 18% 44% WA 23% 77% 56% 21% 21% 0% 17% 43% WV 18% 82% 71% 11% 11% 0% 14% 59% WI 22% 78% 58% 20% 20% 1% 11% 50% WY 22% 78% 57% 21% 21% 0% 13% 47% Ranges and Averages High (Low) 34% 90% 44% 45% 45% 2% 22% 32% 20th (80th) Percentile 27% 84% 53% 24% 24% 0% 18% 42% Median 23% 77% 58% 18% 18% 0% 16% 45% 80th (20th) Percentile 16% 73% 63% 14% 14% 0% 14% 50% Low (High) 10% 66% 71% 7% 7% 0% 9% 59% Source: Federal Communications Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Census and USTelecom Analysis. Percentages rounded. Ranges are high-to-low except for second, third and eighth columns, which are low-to-high. A-5

11 Appendix B - Technical Notes Comparison and Consistency with Previous Analyses USTelecom has issued a series of national voice competition analyses, the most recent was released in a November 22, 2013 Research Brief, which updated an April 3, 2013 Research Brief. USTelecom also issued a state voice competition analysis in a May 30, 2013 Research Brief. This updated state analysis is intended to achieve maximum methodological consistency with the most recent national analysis and to minimize skews arising from the use of several data sources. It is also updated to include historical data for 2008 to show the trend through See the November 22, 2013 Research Brief for a full discussion of the national methodology. This analysis makes methodological adjustments from previous state analyses in order to fine tune the results and minimize distortions arising from the use of several data sources. In particular, the analysis relies upon household data from Census, share of households from CDC for no-phone, wireless-only, and landline households, and line count data from FCC for allocating landlines among s and Non-s, and switched, and VoIP service. All of these data sets are subject to certain margins of error, which make inconsistencies inevitable. The May 30, 2013 state analysis started by taking the share of households that were either wireless-only or used a landline from CDC. It then added actual FCC line counts for landlines other than switched, including non- switched, non- VoIP, and VoIP, and after backing out second lines, divided by the number of Census households to calculate the percentage of households. The remaining percentage of households was then assumed to reflect switched primary line households. This approach, referred to herein as the residual method, lent itself to minor distortions in a handful of cases in which using the literal reported FCC lines adjusted for second lines would result in telephone households greater than or less than 100 percent of telephone households reported by Census, given the share allocated to wireless-only by CDC. The methodology effectively addressed the inconsistency by assuming that switched lines were the residual. This meant that when actual FCC line counts implied greater than 100 percent of households, the switched share was truncated to bring the total down to 100 percent; and when actual FCC line counts implied less than 100 percent of households, switched share was effectively augmented to bring the total up to 100 percent. In the former case, switched share is skewed down; in the latter case, switched share is skewed up relative to its proportionate state share within the FCC data. In both cases, landlines other than switched were taken as given by the FCC and the skew in terms of share was the inverse of the skew for switched. In order to correct for the potential distortions described above, the new analysis employs what will be referred to as the proportionate method. The key adjustments are described below. The starting point remains the CDC for wireless-only and landline households; however, the new analysis allocates landline households among s and non-s in proportion to the FCC data for each state. In this way, to the extent actual FCC line B-1

12 counts do not align perfectly with Census and CDC household data, the difference is more evenly spread among s and non-s, minimizing the distortion of household share. Table B1 describes the results, state-by-state, using the residual and proportionate methods and the difference. The data in the table make two points. First, the change in methodology did not make a big difference for most states: 40 of 46 states for which data were available shifted less than three percentage points, plus or minus. Second, the results under the new proportionate methodology are on balance more conservative with respect to shares than the old methodology. Twenty-four of the 46 states saw an increase in switched share under the new proportionate methodology; 22 saw a lower switched share. Of the states that saw large shifts, greater than three percentage points, five showed more conservative results under the new methodology, i.e. an increase in the switched share percentage points (Delaware +4.6, Maine +3.3 percent, New Hampshire +7.2, New Jersey +4.3, and Vermont +6.9). Only one state showed a decline in switched share percentage points (Rhode Island -7.0). In addition, the previous state analysis backed out second lines using the same assumptions used in the previous (April 3, 2013) national analysis: approximately 10 percent for s and 6 percent non-s. In the most recent national analysis (November 22, 2013), USTelecom used a different approach, allocating second lines in proportion to and non- landline shares. This state analysis effectively does the same by allocating remaining landline households in proportion to and non- state shares. This approach effectively allows for more variation among states in second line adoption, rather than applying a rigid national assumption. One minor difference between this state analysis and the latest national analysis is the state analysis cannot distinguish between non- switched telephony provided by cable and non-cable providers due to data limitations. In the national analysis, non-, non-cable switched telephony providers, are assumed to resell wholesale services and are included in the switched category. Unfortunately, this skews estimates of competitive share up slightly. Such providers, however, account for only 1.5 percent of national telephone households at the end of 2011, and this percentage is declining. Therefore, the impact on the results is likely very small. Of course, resellers are competitors, just not facilities-based competitors, which has been the focus of the USTelecom voice competition analyses. On the other hand, the CDC state data are reported somewhat differently than the CDC national data, and may understate competitive share. The CDC state data report the percentage of adults living in wireless-only households, which is slightly different that the percent of households that are wireless-only. In the CDC national data, they report both: wireless-only households during the second half of 2011 were 34 percent and the percent of adults living in those households was 32.3 percent. Thus, there is a fair chance that this state analysis understates wireless-only share of telephone households since the only available state data from CDC are based on percentage of adults, not percentage of households. At the national level, the difference is a little over 1.5 percent. This understatement is roughly on par with the overstatement for noncable non- switched share of telephone households, though there is no guarantee that the two factors would balance in all states, if data were available. B-2

13 Table B1 Impact of Proportionate vs. Residula Method on Shares (Percenage of households) Old Residual Method New Proportionate Method Difference (New Minus Old) State Other Than Non- VoIP Other Than Non- VoIP Other Than Non- AL 41% 20% 18% 2% 41% 20% 18% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% AK n/a n/a n/a 0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a AZ 29% 27% 27% 0% 29% 27% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% AR 32% 18% 16% 2% 34% 16% 14% 2% 2% -2% -2% 0% CA 41% 26% 22% 4% 42% 25% 21% 4% 1% -1% -1% 0% CO 32% 24% 24% 0% 34% 22% 22% 0% 2% -2% -2% 0% CT 33% 45% 39% 6% 36% 42% 36% 6% 3% -3% -3% 0% DE 29% 39% 32% 8% 34% 35% 28% 7% 5% -5% -4% -1% DC 27% 22% 20% 2% 30% 19% 17% 2% 3% -3% -3% 0% FL 31% 30% 25% 4% 32% 29% 24% 4% 1% -1% -1% 0% GA 38% 22% 19% 3% 37% 23% 20% 3% -1% 1% 1% 0% HI 53% 18% 18% 0% 51% 20% 20% 0% -2% 2% 2% 0% ID 37% 13% 13% 0% 38% 12% 12% 0% 1% -1% -1% 0% IL 36% 26% 22% 4% 36% 27% 23% 4% -1% 1% 0% 0% IN 41% 22% 19% 3% 40% 23% 20% 3% -1% 1% 1% 0% IA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a KS 35% 23% 21% 2% 33% 25% 22% 2% -2% 2% 2% 0% KY 43% 19% 19% 1% 42% 21% 20% 1% -1% 1% 1% 0% LA 41% 22% 20% 2% 39% 23% 21% 2% -1% 1% 1% 0% ME 39% 25% 25% 0% 42% 21% 21% 0% 3% -3% -3% 0% MD 36% 33% 23% 10% 38% 31% 22% 9% 2% -2% -2% -1% MA 29% 46% 40% 6% 32% 44% 38% 6% 2% -2% -2% 0% MI 26% 33% 29% 4% 28% 31% 27% 4% 2% -2% -2% 0% MN 38% 25% 25% 0% 40% 24% 24% 0% 2% -2% -2% 0% MS 38% 14% 12% 1% 37% 14% 13% 1% -1% 1% 1% 0% MO 46% 16% 12% 4% 44% 18% 13% 4% -2% 2% 1% 0% MT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a NE 32% 24% 24% 0% 33% 23% 23% 0% 1% -1% -1% 0% NV 32% 28% 27% 1% 33% 26% 25% 1% 2% -2% -2% 0% NH 24% 47% 47% 0% 32% 40% 40% 0% 7% -7% -7% 0% NJ 29% 52% 44% 8% 33% 48% 41% 7% 4% -4% -4% -1% NM 46% 11% 11% 0% 46% 12% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NY 36% 41% 37% 4% 34% 43% 39% 4% -2% 2% 2% 0% NC 39% 23% 21% 1% 39% 22% 21% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% ND 38% 17% 17% 0% 39% 15% 15% 0% 2% -2% -2% 0% OH 38% 23% 20% 2% 38% 23% 21% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% OK 34% 27% 25% 2% 34% 27% 25% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% OR 32% 24% 24% 0% 34% 22% 22% 0% 2% -2% -2% 0% PA 44% 28% 25% 4% 44% 29% 25% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% RI 40% 43% 35% 8% 33% 50% 41% 9% -7% 7% 6% 1% SC 39% 20% 18% 2% 39% 19% 17% 2% 1% -1% -1% 0% SD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TN 37% 22% 20% 2% 37% 22% 20% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% TX 36% 18% 14% 4% 35% 19% 14% 5% -1% 1% 1% 0% UT 35% 22% 22% 0% 35% 22% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% VT 37% 28% 28% 0% 44% 21% 21% 0% 7% -7% -7% 0% VA 42% 28% 22% 6% 41% 28% 22% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% WA 32% 30% 30% 0% 34% 28% 28% 0% 2% -2% -2% 0% WV 50% 20% 20% 0% 49% 21% 21% 0% -1% 1% 1% 0% WI 38% 24% 21% 3% 38% 24% 21% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% WY n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Source: Federal Communications Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Census and USTelecom Analysis. Percentages rounded. VoIP B-3

14 State Estimates for Year-End 2011; No State-by-State Projections to 2013 The state analysis attempts to normalize all data to year-end 2008 and year-end Actual FCC data are available for year-end 2008 and year-end The Census data are based on a March survey; year-end 2011 data are derived by straight-line quarterly estimates from March 2011 to March CDC state-level data reflect overlapping 12-month periods, from January to December, and July to June. July 2008 to June 2009 data are assumed to reflect yearend The most recent data for January to December 2011 are assumed to reflect mid-year 2011; year-end figures for 2011 are derived using straight-line growth from the prior period. This method generated year-end estimates that are consistent with CDC s national data, which are released semi-annually. The CDC semi-annual national data are assumed to reflect a mid-point for each half of the year and therefore require adjustments to year-end. USTelecom s national household voice share analysis includes projections, based on straight-line methods, for year-end 2012 and year-end This state-level analysis does not contain state-by-state share projections, due to the complexity of the exercise and the greater potential for error in making more granular projections. Nonetheless, given the available state data, which show increasing levels of competition, it is very likely that all or most states are following the national trend of declining shares. For example, for the three periods reported in the latest CDC data, there was an increase in the share of wireless-only households in every state for which data are available. Using FCC data from year-end 2011 to year-end 2012, s lost lines in all states. This is true even if VoIP gains are netted against switched line losses. Mid-Year 2011 Data for Mostly and No-Phone Households As noted above, the CDC data are based on overlapping twelve-month periods, which presumably reflect the midpoint of each period. For wireless-only households, it is possible to estimate year-end figures using straight-line methods with the existing data. There is no time series data reported for wireless-mostly households and no-phone households. Therefore, the data for those two categories is based on mid-year Applying these shares in the year-end 2011 analysis is a crude estimation, but not likely problematic. Unlike wireless-only households, at the national level the share of households that are wireless-mostly has not shown consistent upward or downward trends recently. Impact of VoIP Categorization The analysis above states that inclusion of VoIP as an alternative to switched service does not affect the broad observation that s are no longer dominant in the provision of voice communications. At the national level, VoIP accounted for approximately three percent of telephone households at the end of 2011, although its share relative to switched service is expected to grow over time and will account for an increasing share. At the state level, VoIP shares fall in a larger range, from zero to almost ten percentage points at the end of Therefore, it is appropriate to determine whether inclusion of VoIP affects the conclusion in states where it commands the largest shares. B-4

15 An analysis of Table A1 with year-end 2011 estimates indicates that the categorization of VoIP does not have a material impact on the overall conclusion. First, the 80 percentile for VoIP share of households was 4.3 percent, meaning 80 percent of states with data available showed VoIP share less than 4.3 percent. Second, for the 10 states Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia where VoIP share was greater than 4.3 percent, other competitive alternatives to s also had very high shares, such that total share including VoIP remained less than 50 percent ranging from 37 percent to 48 percent. Only three states had combined switched and VoIP share greater than 42 percent: Virginia and Maryland with 47 percent and Montana with 48 percent. Again, this is an estimate for year-end 2011 and shares have declined since then. Not surprisingly, high--voip states were states where non- landline competition was strong, with all but two of the 10 states (Texas and Montana) also being ranked better than average (median) in non- switched and VoIP competition. Somewhat more surprising, most of these states were not strong in wireless-only shares, with only the same two (Texas and Montana) greater than average for wireless-only households. But these states that were ranked lower in wireless-only households are dense Eastern states where, as the CDC has noted, wireless cord-cutting has not been historically as great as the rest of the country. Meanwhile wireless-mostly rankings in these states are typically greater than average. States Excluded Due to Data Issues This new state analysis excludes five states because data were not available from either the FCC (Alaska) or CDC (Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming). These states collectively represent only 2.1 percent of U.S. households. Therefore excluding them from the analysis is not likely to significantly skew the results. However, since they likely represent a larger share of rural households, it is worth exploring how these states measure up to the rest of the states. For the states missing in the CDC data, CDC does provide estimates, however, the standard errors are large, so it is inappropriate to include in the analysis with the other states. Table B1 below presents the CDC estimates for these states, which are available only for the period January to December 2011, presumably reflecting mid-year Table B2: Estimated Voice Shares for CDC Missing States (Percent of Telephone Households, Mid-Year 2011) State Other Than Non- ( and VoIP) VoIP - Only - Mostly - Only Standard Error - Mostly Standard Error IA 32% 68% 51% 17% 17% ~0% 16% 5.9% 3.8% MT 33% 67% 49% 19% 19% ~0% 18% 6.2% 4.1% SD 33% 67% 24% 43% 43% ~0% 17% 6.1% 3.9% WY 34% 66% 45% 21% 20% 0.4% 18% 6.3% 4.1% Source: Federal Communications Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Census and USTelecom Analysis. Percentages rounded. B-5

16 The data and estimates in Table B2 reflect mid-year Therefore comparisons with year-end data in Table 1 and Table A1 above are likely to be complicated since the dates are out of sync. Table A2 above provides a better comparison since it shows the same analysis as Table 1, but for mid-year Assuming the CDC estimates for these states are accurate, the table shows that these states are within the range of the other states analyzed. With the exception of South Dakota, which ranks very highly, they would be near the lower end of the range. B-6

VOICE COMPETITORS EXCEED HALF OF HOUSEHOLD SHARE IN ALL STATES By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis

VOICE COMPETITORS EXCEED HALF OF HOUSEHOLD SHARE IN ALL STATES By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis RESEARCH BRIEF NOVEMBER 25, 2014 VOICE COMPETITORS EXCEED HALF OF HOUSEHOLD SHARE IN ALL STATES By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis USTelecom analysis of state-by-state data show competition

More information

Age of Insured Discount

Age of Insured Discount A discount may apply based on the age of the insured. The age of each insured shall be calculated as the policyholder s age as of the last day of the calendar year. The age of the named insured in the

More information

ACORD Forms Updated in AMS R1

ACORD Forms Updated in AMS R1 ACORD Forms Updated in AMS360 2017 R1 The following forms will use the ACORD form viewer, also new in this release. Forms with an indicate they were added because of requests in the Product Enhancement

More information

36 Million Without Health Insurance in 2014; Decreases in Uninsurance Between 2013 and 2014 Varied by State

36 Million Without Health Insurance in 2014; Decreases in Uninsurance Between 2013 and 2014 Varied by State 36 Million Without Health Insurance in 2014; Decreases in Uninsurance Between 2013 and 2014 Varied by State An estimated 36 million people in the United States had no health insurance in 2014, approximately

More information

medicaid a n d t h e How will the Medicaid Expansion for Adults Impact Eligibility and Coverage? Key Findings in Brief

medicaid a n d t h e How will the Medicaid Expansion for Adults Impact Eligibility and Coverage? Key Findings in Brief on medicaid a n d t h e uninsured July 2012 How will the Medicaid Expansion for Adults Impact Eligibility and Coverage? Key Findings in Brief Effective January 2014, the ACA establishes a new minimum Medicaid

More information

STATE TAX WITHHOLDING GUIDELINES

STATE TAX WITHHOLDING GUIDELINES STATE TAX WITHHOLDING GUIDELINES ( Guardian Insurance & Annuity Company, Inc. and Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (hereafter collectively referred to as Company )) (Last Updated 11/2/215) state

More information

Health Insurance Price Index for October-December February 2014

Health Insurance Price Index for October-December February 2014 Health Insurance Price Index for October-December 2013 February 2014 ehealth 2.2014 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Executive Summary and Highlights... 4 Nationwide Health Insurance Costs National

More information

Highlights. Percent of States with a Decrease in MH Expenditures from Prior Year: FY2001 to 2010

Highlights. Percent of States with a Decrease in MH Expenditures from Prior Year: FY2001 to 2010 FY 2010 State Mental Health Revenues and Expenditures Information from the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute, Inc (NRI) Sept 2012 Highlights SMHA Funding

More information

NCSL Midwest States Fiscal Leaders Forum. March 10, 2017

NCSL Midwest States Fiscal Leaders Forum. March 10, 2017 NCSL Midwest States Fiscal Leaders Forum March 10, 2017 Public Pensions: 50-State Overview David Draine, Senior Officer Public Sector Retirement Systems Project The Pew Charitable Trusts More than 40 active,

More information

Household Income for States: 2010 and 2011

Household Income for States: 2010 and 2011 Household Income for States: 2010 and 2011 American Community Survey Briefs By Amanda Noss Issued September 2012 ACSBR/11-02 INTRODUCTION Estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) and the

More information

BY THE NUMBERS 2016: Another Lackluster Year for State Tax Revenue

BY THE NUMBERS 2016: Another Lackluster Year for State Tax Revenue BY THE NUMBERS 2016: Another Lackluster Year for State Tax Revenue Jim Malatras May 2017 Lucy Dadayan and Donald J. Boyd 2016: Another Lackluster Year for State Tax Revenue Lucy Dadayan and Donald J. Boyd

More information

The Economics of Homelessness

The Economics of Homelessness 15 The Economics of Homelessness Despite frequent characterization as a psychosocial problem, the problem of homelessness is largely economic. People who become homeless have insufficient financial resources

More information

Installment Loans CHARTS. No cap other than unconscionability:

Installment Loans CHARTS. No cap other than unconscionability: NCLC NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER Installment Loans WILL STATES PROTECT BORROWERS FROM A NEW WAVE OF PREDATORY LENDING? Copyright 2015, National Consumer Law Center, Inc. CHARTS CHART 1 Full APRs Allowed

More information

Comparative Revenues and Revenue Forecasts Prepared By: Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Services Division State of Arkansas

Comparative Revenues and Revenue Forecasts Prepared By: Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Services Division State of Arkansas Comparative Revenues and Revenue Forecasts 2010-2014 Prepared By: Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Services Division State of Arkansas Comparative Revenues and Revenue Forecasts This data shows tax

More information

Update: 50-State Survey of Retiree Health Care Liabilities Most recent data show changes to benefits, funding policies could help manage rising costs

Update: 50-State Survey of Retiree Health Care Liabilities Most recent data show changes to benefits, funding policies could help manage rising costs A fact sheet from Dec 2018 Update: 50-State Survey of Retiree Health Care Liabilities Most recent data show changes to benefits, funding policies could help manage rising costs Getty Images Overview States

More information

Data Note: What if Per Enrollee Medicaid Spending Growth Had Been Limited to CPI-M from ?

Data Note: What if Per Enrollee Medicaid Spending Growth Had Been Limited to CPI-M from ? Data Note: What if Per Enrollee Medicaid Spending Growth Had Been Limited to CPI-M from 2001-2011? Rachel Garfield, Robin Rudowitz, and Katherine Young Congress is currently debating the American Health

More information

PRODUCER ANNUITY SUITABILITY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS BY STATE As of September 11, 2017

PRODUCER ANNUITY SUITABILITY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS BY STATE As of September 11, 2017 PRODUCER ANNUITY SUITABILITY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS BY STATE As of September 11, 2017 This document provides a summary of the annuity training requirements that agents are required to complete for each

More information

Frequency and Severity Results by State

Frequency and Severity Results by State Frequency and Severity Results by State Based on Data Valued as of December 31, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Comparison to Trend Factors Used in Ratemaking 3 Method of Calculation 4 Caveats

More information

ACORD Forms in ebixasp (03/2004)

ACORD Forms in ebixasp (03/2004) ACORD Forms in ebixasp (03/2004) Form number Form Name Edition Date 1 Property Loss Notice 2002/1 2 Automobile Loss Notice 2002/1 3 General Liability Notice of Occurrence/Claim 2002/1 4 Workers Compensation

More information

American Memorial Contract

American Memorial Contract American Memorial Contract Please complete all pages of the contract and send it back to Stephens- Matthews with a copy of each state license you choose to appoint in. You are required to submit with the

More information

State, Local and Net Tuition Revenue Supporting General Operating Expenses of Higher Education, U.S., Fiscal Year 2010, Current (unadjusted) Dollars

State, Local and Net Tuition Revenue Supporting General Operating Expenses of Higher Education, U.S., Fiscal Year 2010, Current (unadjusted) Dollars State, Local and Net Tuition Revenue Supporting General Operating Expenses of Higher Education, U.S., Fiscal Year 2010, Current (unadjusted) Dollars Net Tuition $51.3 Billion 37% All State Support $73.7

More information

2017 WORKBOOK. Mandatory LTC Training

2017 WORKBOOK. Mandatory LTC Training 2017 WORKBOOK Mandatory LTC Training ABOUT THE AUTHOR EDUCATION CREDIT AND YOUR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION LTC Connection specializes exclusively in LTC insurance training and education and has been working

More information

Underwriting Results by State. Based on Data Valued as of December 31, 2016

Underwriting Results by State. Based on Data Valued as of December 31, 2016 Underwriting Results by State Based on Data Valued as of December 31, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Introduction to the Underwriting Results by State 5 Underwriting Results by Component 6

More information

ehealth, Inc Fall Cost Report for Individual and Family Policyholders

ehealth, Inc Fall Cost Report for Individual and Family Policyholders ehealth, Inc. 2010 Fall Cost Report for and Family Policyholders Table of Contents Page Methodology.................................................................. 2 ehealth, Inc. 2010 Fall Cost Report

More information

Required Minimum Distribution Election Form for IRA s, 403(b)/TSA and other Qualified Plans

Required Minimum Distribution Election Form for IRA s, 403(b)/TSA and other Qualified Plans Required Minimum Distribution Election Form for IRA s, 403(b)/TSA and other Qualified Plans For Policyholders who have not annuitized their deferred annuity contracts Zurich American Life Insurance Company

More information

Systematic Distribution Form

Systematic Distribution Form Systematic Distribution Form (To be used for all Qualified Plans, IRA s and Non-Qualified Plans) (This form is not applicable to a Required Minimum Distribution ( RMD ). If you are older than 70 ½, refer

More information

TThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

TThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2010 TThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a central component of American policy to alleviate hunger and poverty.

More information

Final Paycheck Laws by State

Final Paycheck Laws by State ALABAMA AL No Provision No Provision ALASKA AK 23.05.140(b) ARIZONA AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. 23-350, 23-353 ARKANSAS AR Ark. Code Ann. 11-4-405 CALIFORNIA CA Cal. Lab. Code 201 to 202, 227.3 COLORADO CO Colo.

More information

The Puzzling Decline in State Sales Tax Collections

The Puzzling Decline in State Sales Tax Collections The Puzzling Decline in State Sales Tax Collections Introduction This is the first of a series of papers that will investigate fiscal problems confronting the states. In spite of low unemployment rates,

More information

kaiser medicaid and the uninsured commission on The Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State-by-State Analysis

kaiser medicaid and the uninsured commission on The Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State-by-State Analysis kaiser commission on medicaid and the uninsured The Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Expansion: National and State-by-State Analysis Executive Summary John Holahan, Matthew Buettgens, Caitlin

More information

Non-Financial Change Form

Non-Financial Change Form Non-Financial Change Form Please Print All Information Below Section 1. Contract Owner s Information Administrative Offices: PO BOX 19097 Greenville, SC 29602-9097 Phone number (800) 449-0523 Overnight

More information

State Retiree Health Care Liabilities: An Update Increased obligations in 2015 mirrored rise in overall health care costs

State Retiree Health Care Liabilities: An Update Increased obligations in 2015 mirrored rise in overall health care costs A brief from Sept 207 State Retiree Health Care Liabilities: An Update Increased obligations in 205 mirrored rise in overall health care costs Overview States paid a total of $20.8 billion in 205 for nonpension

More information

Financing Unemployment Benefits in Today s Tough Economic Times

Financing Unemployment Benefits in Today s Tough Economic Times Financing Unemployment Benefits in Today s Tough Economic Times Maurice Emsellem 7 th Annual Workers Voice State Legislative Issues Conference July 19, 2003. Today s Funding Situation The Good, the Bad

More information

NASRA Issue Brief: Employee Contributions to Public Pension Plans

NASRA Issue Brief: Employee Contributions to Public Pension Plans NASRA Issue Brief: Employee Contributions to Public Pension Plans September 2017 Unlike in the private sector, nearly all employees of state and local government are required to share in the cost of their

More information

Oregon: Where Taxes Are Low, Fees Are High and Revenue Is Slightly Below Average

Oregon: Where Taxes Are Low, Fees Are High and Revenue Is Slightly Below Average Issue Brief March 6, 2012 Oregon: Where Taxes Are Low, Fees Are High and Revenue Is Slightly Below Average The money we pay in fees and taxes helps create jobs, build a strong economy, and preserve Oregon

More information

Older consumers and student loan debt by state

Older consumers and student loan debt by state August 2017 Older consumers and student loan debt by state New data on the burden of student loan debt on older consumers In January, the Bureau published a snapshot of older consumers and student loan

More information

Taxing Investment Income in the States New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute 2 nd Annual Budget and Policy Conference Concord, NH January 23, 2015

Taxing Investment Income in the States New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute 2 nd Annual Budget and Policy Conference Concord, NH January 23, 2015 Taxing Investment Income in the States New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute 2 nd Annual Budget and Policy Conference Concord, NH January 23, 2015 Norton Francis State and Local Finance Initiative Urban-Brookings

More information

Financial Transaction Form for IRA and Non-Qualified Contracts Only

Financial Transaction Form for IRA and Non-Qualified Contracts Only Financial Transaction Form for IRA and Non-Qualified Contracts Only (Note: See Form ZA-8642 dealing with Financial Transactions for 403(b)/TSA s) Please Print All Information Below Zurich American Life

More information

Health and Health Coverage in the South: A Data Update

Health and Health Coverage in the South: A Data Update February 2016 Issue Brief Health and Health Coverage in the South: A Data Update Samantha Artiga and Anthony Damico With its recent adoption of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion to adults,

More information

Medicaid & CHIP: February 2014 Monthly Applications, Eligibility Determinations, and Enrollment Report April 4, 2014

Medicaid & CHIP: February 2014 Monthly Applications, Eligibility Determinations, and Enrollment Report April 4, 2014 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S2-26-12 Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850 Medicaid & CHIP: February 2014 Monthly Applications,

More information

The Great Recession of 2008

The Great Recession of 2008 State Revenue Collection through the Great Recession Michael F. Thompson, Ph.D.: Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Texas The Great Recession of 2008 caused a major blow to the economic

More information

Long-Term Care Partnership Overview & Training Requirements Guide

Long-Term Care Partnership Overview & Training Requirements Guide Long-Term Care Partnership Overview & Training Requirements Guide Version Sept. 12, 2012 M28108 Contents LONG-TERM CARE PARTNERSHIP OVERVIEW & TRAINING REQUIREMENTS GUIDE Long-Term Care Partnership Overview...4

More information

STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES:

STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES: STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES: 2013-2018 Since 2013, 27 states have increased or adjusted taxes on motor fuel to support needed transportation investments. Twenty-four of those states increased their

More information

MARKET TRENDS: MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT. Gorman Health Group, LLC

MARKET TRENDS: MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT. Gorman Health Group, LLC MARKET TRENDS: MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT Gorman Health Group, LLC Issued: December 1, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 OVERALL TRENDS IN MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT ENROLLMENT... 4 NATIONWIDE ENROLLMENT...

More information

2016 Workers compensation premium index rates

2016 Workers compensation premium index rates 2016 Workers compensation premium index rates NH WA OR NV CA AK ID AZ UT MT WY CO NM MI VT ND MN SD WI NY NE IA PA IL IN OH WV VA KS MO KY NC TN OK AR SC MS AL GA TX LA FL ME MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC = Under

More information

A Nationwide Look at the Affordability of Water Service

A Nationwide Look at the Affordability of Water Service Introduction A Nationwide Look at the Affordability of Water Service Scott J. Rubin Public Utility Consulting 3 Lost Creek Drive Selinsgrove, PA 17870-9357 (717) 743-2233, sjrubin@ptd.net The affordability

More information

Insufficient and Negative Equity

Insufficient and Negative Equity Insufficient and Negative Equity Lack Of Equity Impedes The Real Estate Market Mark Fleming Chief Economist December, 2011 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Negative Equity Highly Concentrated Negative Equity Share,

More information

Long-Term Care Partnership Overview & Training Requirements Guide

Long-Term Care Partnership Overview & Training Requirements Guide Long-Term Care Insurance Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company SM Long-Term Care Partnership Overview & Training Requirements Guide 75014 Version November 16, 2015 For producer use only. Not for use with the

More information

Quality & Nondestructive Testing Industry. Salary Survey Your Path to the Perfect Job Starts Here.

Quality & Nondestructive Testing Industry. Salary Survey Your Path to the Perfect Job Starts Here. Quality & Nondestructive Testing Industry Salary Survey 2011 Your Path to the Perfect Job Starts Here. ABOUT PQNDT PQNDT (Personnel for Quality and Nondestructive Testing) is the leading personnel recruitment

More information

Committee on Ways and Means Democrats

Committee on Ways and Means Democrats DRAFT Committee on Ways and Means Democrats Representative Sandy Levin - Ranking Member Report November 7, 2013 Millions of Unemployed Americans Will Lose Benefits Unless Congress Acts Over 3 Million Will

More information

Florida 1/1/2016 Workers Compensation Rate Filing

Florida 1/1/2016 Workers Compensation Rate Filing Florida 1/1/2016 Workers Compensation Rate Filing Kirt Dooley, FCAS, MAAA October 21, 2015 1 $ Billions 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Florida s Workers Compensation Premium Volume 2.368 0.765 0.034

More information

STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES:

STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES: Since 2013, 26 states have increased or adjusted taxes on motor fuel to support needed transportation investments. Twenty-three of those states increased their state gas tax, while three states Kentucky,

More information

State Postal Abbreviation Codes

State Postal Abbreviation Codes State Postal Areviation Codes State Areviation State Areviation Alaama AL Montana MT Alaska AK Neraska NE Arizona AZ Nevada NV Arkansas AR New Hampshire NH California CA New Jersey NJ Colorado CO New Mexico

More information

Aviva Announcing Changes to Products and Annuity Rates

Aviva Announcing Changes to Products and Annuity Rates September 9, 2011 Aviva Announcing Changes to Products and Annuity Rates This field update contains information on product and rate changes effective September 16, 2011. We want to thank you for all of

More information

National Vital Statistics Reports

National Vital Statistics Reports National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 60, Number 9 September 14, 2012 U.S. Decennial Life Tables for 1999 2001: State Life Tables by Rong Wei, Ph.D., Office of Research and Methodology; Robert N. Anderson,

More information

LIFE AND ACCIDENT AND HEALTH

LIFE AND ACCIDENT AND HEALTH 201 FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 1, 201 LIFE AND ACCIDENT AND HEALTH 201 Schedule A - Part 1 - Real Estate Owned Schedule A - Part 2 - Real Estate Acquired and Additions Made Schedule A - Part - Real Estate

More information

Health Coverage for the Black Population Today and Under the Affordable Care Act

Health Coverage for the Black Population Today and Under the Affordable Care Act fact sheet Health Coverage for the Black Population Today and Under the Affordable Care Act July 2013 As of 2011, 37 million individuals living in the United States identified as Black or African American.

More information

SURVEY OF STATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

SURVEY OF STATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SURVEY OF STATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SURVEY OF STATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation The following report provides a summary of

More information

ES Figure 1 Federal Medicaid Spending Under Current Law and the House Budget Plan, % Reduction in Spending $4,591

ES Figure 1 Federal Medicaid Spending Under Current Law and the House Budget Plan, % Reduction in Spending $4,591 I S S U E P A P E R kaiser commission o n medicaid a n d t h e uninsured October 2012 National and State-by-State Impact of the 2012 House Republican Budget Plan for Medicaid John Holahan, Matthew Buettgens,

More information

Marilyn Tavenner, CMS Administrator Don Moulds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Marilyn Tavenner, CMS Administrator Don Moulds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation TO: The Secretary Through: DS COS ES FROM: Marilyn Tavenner, CMS Administrator Don Moulds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation DATE: September 5, 2013 SUBJECT: Projected Monthly Targets

More information

How is the Affordable Care Act Leading to Changes in Medicaid Today? State Adoption of Five New Options

How is the Affordable Care Act Leading to Changes in Medicaid Today? State Adoption of Five New Options P O L I C Y B R I E F kaiser commission on medicaid and the uninsured How is the Affordable Care Act Leading to Changes in Medicaid Today? State Adoption of Five New Options May 2012 One primary goal of

More information

Financial Firsts: When Do People Take Their First Financial Steps? Appendix: Annotated Questionnaire 1

Financial Firsts: When Do People Take Their First Financial Steps? Appendix: Annotated Questionnaire 1 Financial Firsts: When Do People Take Their First Financial Steps? Appendix: Annotated Questionnaire 1 Conducted for AARP by at the University of Chicago through the Amerispeak Panel Interviews: 946 adults

More information

New Agent Welcome Kit

New Agent Welcome Kit New Agent Welcome Kit 4301 Morris Park Drive Mint Hill, NC 28227 (704) 568-9649 (866) 568-9649 messerfinancial.com The Trusted Partner For Talented Agents This is the foundation that MESSER Financial was

More information

Electronic Supplementary Material for the Article: The Impact of Internet Diffusion on Marriage Rates: Evidence from the Broadband Market

Electronic Supplementary Material for the Article: The Impact of Internet Diffusion on Marriage Rates: Evidence from the Broadband Market Electronic Supplementary Material for the Article: The Impact of Internet Diffusion on Marriage Rates: Evidence from the Broadband Market By Andriana Bellou 1 Appendix A. Data Definitions and Sources This

More information

FISCAL YEAR 2016 AT A GLANCE Number of Authorized Firms

FISCAL YEAR 2016 AT A GLANCE Number of Authorized Firms FISCAL YEAR 2016 AT A GLANCE Number of Authorized Firms 300,000 275,000 250,000 225,000 200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 246,565 252,962 261,150 258,632 260,115 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY

More information

DC Contributions to the DC College Savings Plan of up to $4,000 per year by an individual, and up to $8,000 per year by married taxpayers who each mak

DC Contributions to the DC College Savings Plan of up to $4,000 per year by an individual, and up to $8,000 per year by married taxpayers who each mak AK AL AR Summary of State Tax Implications for 529 Plans Current as of 04/25/2018 This information has been compiled for informational purposes only from sources believed to be reliable, however LPL makes

More information

While one in five Californians overall is uninsured, the rate among those who work is even higher: one in four.

While one in five Californians overall is uninsured, the rate among those who work is even higher: one in four. : By the Numbers December 2013 Introduction California had the greatest number of uninsured residents of any state, 7 million, and the seventh largest percentage of uninsured residents under 65 in the

More information

How Quickly are States Connecting Applicants to Medicaid and CHIP Coverage?

How Quickly are States Connecting Applicants to Medicaid and CHIP Coverage? January 019 Issue Brief How Quickly are States Connecting Applicants to Medicaid and CHIP Coverage? Samantha Artiga and Maria Diaz Summary In November 018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

More information

Who s Above the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap? BY NICOLE WOO, JANELLE JONES, AND JOHN SCHMITT*

Who s Above the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap? BY NICOLE WOO, JANELLE JONES, AND JOHN SCHMITT* Issue Brief September 2011 Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20009 tel: 202-293-5380 fax: 202-588-1356 www.cepr.net Who s Above the Social Security

More information

TCJA and the States Responding to SALT Limits

TCJA and the States Responding to SALT Limits TCJA and the States Responding to SALT Limits Kim S. Rueben Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1 What does this mean for Individuals under TCJA About two-thirds of taxpayers will receive a tax cut with the largest

More information

THE COST OF MEDIGAP PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

THE COST OF MEDIGAP PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE MPR Reference No.: 8733-330 THE COST OF MEDIGAP PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE August 6, 2001 Submitted to: Office of the Secretary Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation U.S. Department of Health

More information

Property Tax Relief in New England

Property Tax Relief in New England Property Tax Relief in New England January 23, 2015 Adam H. Langley Senior Research Analyst Lincoln Institute of Land Policy www.lincolninst.edu Property Tax as a % of Personal Income OK AL IN UT SD MS

More information

Stand-Alone Prescription Drug Plans Dominated the Rural Market in 2011

Stand-Alone Prescription Drug Plans Dominated the Rural Market in 2011 Stand-Alone Prescription Drug Plans Dominated the Rural Market in 2011 Growth Driven by Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan Enrollment Leah Kemper, MPH Abigail Barker, PhD Fred Ullrich, BA Lisa Pollack,

More information

CAH Financial Indicators Report: Summary of Indicator Medians by State

CAH Financial Indicators Report: Summary of Indicator Medians by State Flex Monitoring Team Data Summary Report No. 26: CAH Financial Indicators Report: Summary of Indicator Medians by State March 2018 The Flex Monitoring Team is a consortium of the Rural Health Research

More information

CAH Financial Indicators Report: Summary of Indicator Medians by State

CAH Financial Indicators Report: Summary of Indicator Medians by State Flex Monitoring Team Data Summary Report No. 18: : Summary of Indicator Medians by State March 2016 The Flex Monitoring Team is a consortium of the Rural Health Research Centers located at the Universities

More information

COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR REGISTRATION OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL WITH STATE VERSIONS

COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR REGISTRATION OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL WITH STATE VERSIONS As of September 7, 2016 2016 American Bar Association COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR REGISTRATION OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL WITH STATE VERSIONS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

More information

Rural Policy Brief Volume 10, Number 8 (PB ) April 2006 RUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis

Rural Policy Brief Volume 10, Number 8 (PB ) April 2006 RUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis Rural Policy Brief Volume 10, Number 8 (PB2006-8 ) April 2006 RUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis Medicare Part D: Early Findings on Enrollment and Choices for Rural Beneficiaries Authors: Timothy

More information

Uninsured Children : Charting the Nation s Progress

Uninsured Children : Charting the Nation s Progress Uninsured Children 2009-2011: Charting the Nation s Progress by Joan Alker, Tara Mancini, and Martha Heberlein Key Findings 1. 2. 3. While nationally children s coverage rates continued to improve, more

More information

Summary of Ratepayer-Funded Electric Efficiency Impacts, Budgets, and Expenditures

Summary of Ratepayer-Funded Electric Efficiency Impacts, Budgets, and Expenditures Summary of Ratepayer-Funded Electric Efficiency Impacts, Budgets, and Expenditures IEE Brief January 2012 Summary of Ratepayer-Funded Electric Efficiency Impacts, Budgets and Expenditures (2010-2011)

More information

Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State by State Analysis

Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State by State Analysis Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State by State Analysis Report Authors: John Holahan, Matthew Buettgens, Caitlin Carroll, and Stan Dorn Urban Institute November

More information

State Treatment of Social Security Treatment of Pension Income Other Income Tax Breaks Property Tax Breaks

State Treatment of Social Security Treatment of Pension Income Other Income Tax Breaks Property Tax Breaks State-By-State Tax Breaks for Seniors, 2016 State Treatment of Social Security Treatment of Pension Income Other Income Tax Breaks Property Tax Breaks AL Payments from defined benefit private plans are

More information

Big Bad Banks? The Winners and Losers from Bank Deregulation in the United States

Big Bad Banks? The Winners and Losers from Bank Deregulation in the United States Online Internet Appendix Big Bad Banks? The Winners and Losers from Bank Deregulation in the United States THORSTEN BECK, ROSS LEVINE, AND ALEXEY LEVKOV January 2010 In this appendix, we provide additional

More information

May Complaint snapshot: Debt collection

May Complaint snapshot: Debt collection May 2018 Complaint snapshot: Debt collection Table of contents Table of contents... 1 1. Complaint volume... 2 1.1 By product... 3 1.2 By state... 8 2. Product spotlight: Debt collection... 11 2.1 Complaints

More information

Monthly Complaint Report

Monthly Complaint Report August 2016 Monthly Complaint Report Vol. 14 Table of contents Table of contents... 1 1. Complaint volume... 2 1.1 Complaint volume by product... 3 1.2 Complaint volume by state... 7 1.3 Complaint volume

More information

National Employment Law Project UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FINANCING: STATE TRUST FUNDS IN RECESSION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

National Employment Law Project UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FINANCING: STATE TRUST FUNDS IN RECESSION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 National Employment Law Project UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FINANCING: STATE TRUST FUNDS IN RECESSION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 Introduction In May 2008, NELP issued a briefing paper (Unemployment Insurance

More information

State Budget Cuts Presentation to the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management & Cost Study Commission March 22,2010

State Budget Cuts Presentation to the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management & Cost Study Commission March 22,2010 State Budget Cuts Presentation to the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management & Cost Study Commission March 22,2010 Luke Martel Fiscal Affairs Program Overview The state revenue nightmare continues.

More information

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE GUIDE

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE GUIDE 2017-2018 MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE GUIDE The Federal minimum wage has been $7.25 since 2009, but many states and localities have passed their own minimum wage laws. Employers must pay non-exempt employees

More information

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION To set up and maintain your account with WestconGroup, we require you to provide us valid Resale Certificates for all states that you are located in, as well as for any other

More information

Eye on the South Carolina Housing Market presented at 2008 HBA of South Carolina State Convention August 1, 2008

Eye on the South Carolina Housing Market presented at 2008 HBA of South Carolina State Convention August 1, 2008 Eye on the South Carolina Housing Market presented at 28 HBA of South Carolina State Convention August 1, 28 Robert Denk Assistant Staff Vice President, Forecasting & Analysis 2, US Single Family Housing

More information

Fundamentals and Best Practices for Handling Multistate Taxation Presented Thursday, April 16, 2015

Fundamentals and Best Practices for Handling Multistate Taxation Presented Thursday, April 16, 2015 1 Fundamentals and Best Practices for Handling Multistate Taxation Presented Thursday, April 16, 2015 2 Housekeeping 3 Credit Questions Today s topic Speaker To earn RCH credit you must 4 Stay on the webinar,

More information

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE GUIDE

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE GUIDE 2017-2018 MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE GUIDE The Federal minimum wage has been $7.25 since 2009, but many states and localities have passed their own minimum wage laws. Employers must pay non-exempt employees

More information

Health Insurance Coverage: 2001

Health Insurance Coverage: 2001 Health Insurance Coverage: 200 Consumer Income Issued September 2002 P60-220 Reversing 2 years of falling uninsured rates, the share of the population without health insurance rose in 200. An estimated

More information

Housing Market Update. September 23, 2013

Housing Market Update. September 23, 2013 Housing Market Update September 23, 2013 Overview Housing market gradually recovering from the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. Excess supply of housing largely worked off. Underlying

More information

GIVING OR GETTING? NEW YORK S BALANCE OF PAYMENTS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. September Jim Malatras.

GIVING OR GETTING? NEW YORK S BALANCE OF PAYMENTS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. September Jim Malatras. GIVING OR GETTING? NEW YORK S BALANCE OF PAYMENTS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Jim Malatras September 2017 www.rockinst.org @rockefellerinst Giving or Getting? New York s Balance of Payments with the Federal

More information

Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19th

Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19th Apr. 2018 Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19th Erica York Analyst Key Findings Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it represents how long Americans as a whole have to

More information

WELLCARE WINS BID IN EVERY REGION FOR 2007 AND INTRODUCES CLASSIC PLAN WITH LOWER PLAN PREMIUMS

WELLCARE WINS BID IN EVERY REGION FOR 2007 AND INTRODUCES CLASSIC PLAN WITH LOWER PLAN PREMIUMS PR Contact: IR Contact: H. Patel Jeff Potter CKPR WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (312) 616-2471 (813) 290-6313 hpatel@ckpr.biz jeff.potter@wellcare.com WELLCARE WINS BID IN EVERY REGION FOR 2007 AND INTRODUCES

More information

Current Trends in the Medicaid RFP Procurement Landscape

Current Trends in the Medicaid RFP Procurement Landscape Current Trends in the Medicaid RFP Procurement Landscape This is a Presentation Subtitle PRESENTED BY: Michael Lutz Avalere Health October 31, 2017 About Us Michael Lutz Vice President mlutz@avalere.com

More information

The Acquisition of Regions Insurance Group. April 6, 2018

The Acquisition of Regions Insurance Group. April 6, 2018 The Acquisition of Regions Insurance Group April 6, 2018 Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform

More information

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from E-Commerce: Estimates as of July 2004

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from E-Commerce: Estimates as of July 2004 State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from E-Commerce: Estimates as of July 2004 by Dr. Donald Bruce, Research Assistant Professor dbruce@utk.edu and Dr. William F. Fox, Professor and Director billfox@utk.edu

More information

Just The Facts: On The Ground SIF Utilization

Just The Facts: On The Ground SIF Utilization Just The Facts: On The Ground SIF Utilization The Access 4 Learning Community (A4L), previously the SIF Association, has changed its brand name due to the fact that the majority of its 3,000 members represent

More information