Phase One Report

Our impact on policy across the country

In the short time since our founding, Tobin Center research has been cited and shared by policymakers at all levels of government. From mentions in the State of the Union and gubernatorial addresses to press releases issued by the U.S. Speaker of the House and citations included in the Economic Report of the President, conversation around our research reflects its relevance to today’s policy challenges.

From evidence to action

In the short time since our founding, Tobin Center research has been cited and shared by policymakers at all levels of government. From mentions in press releases issued by the U.S. Speaker of the House to references in gubernatorial addresses, the Economic Report of the President, and the State of the Union, conversation around our research reflects its relevance to today’s policy challenges.

But we want decisionmakers to do more than talk about our work. We want them to use it to improve people’s lives. Since our founding, we’ve contributed–in ways that are both transformational and incremental–to real policy change.

We helped end surprise medical bills

The Problem

What We Did

Our research uncovered a troubling nationwide trend.

In a study that relied on millions of health insurance claims, Professor Zack Cooper, director of the Tobin Center’s Health Care Affordability Lab, and Tobin Center Faculty Affiliate Professor Fiona Scott Morton found that 22% of patients who went to emergency departments within their health insurance networks were treated by an out-of-network doctor—often incurring major, unexpected expenses. The research caught the attention of the press and policymakers, kicking off a years-long debate about how to address “surprise medical bills.”

The New York Times

What We Did

We took our findings to Washington.

In the years that followed, Professors Cooper and Scott Morton continued to publish new research on the widespread crisis of surprise medical bills, and Professor Cooper made at least a dozen trips to Washington to meet with policymakers in Congress and at the White House. In December 2020, members of Congress came together across the aisle to pass legislation that protects patients from surprise medical bills for certain medical services, including emergency care.

What Changed

We helped institutions support Americans during moments of instability

The Problem

Governments, school systems, and other institutions need quick, reliable data and evidence.

In moments of crisis or profound change, the institutions we rely on to deliver essential services and support–state and local governments, school systems, or federal agencies to name a few–need urgent, but often nonexistent, evidence to inform their decisions. This was especially true during the Covid-19 pandemic, and remains true today as state and local governments and other institutions adapt to major policy changes at the federal level.

What We Did

We helped states respond to major changes in federal Medicaid and SNAP policy.

Alongside Professors Chima Ndumele and Jacob Wallace and our partners at the Yale School of Public Health, we built a new way to work within and alongside state agencies to strengthen public health and human services systems while building evidence on what works. By embedding data scientists into Connecticut's Department of Social Services, the Yale research team has been able to help the state navigate and respond to unprecedented changes to Medicaid and SNAP policy enacted in recent federal legislation.

What We Did

We provided data to stem the spread of disease in nursing homes.

What We Did

We produced evidence for childcare providers in crisis.

Alongside our partner Child Care Aware–the nation's largest childcare association, we ran the largest-ever occupational-epidemiological study across American preschools and childcare centers and found that children in childcare programs presented no significant risk to adult childcare providers.

What Changed

We showed that universities can help in times of change or instability.

Through this important work, we showed that Yale and other universities can serve as dedicated, collaborative partners to governments and other institutions in times of change, instability, or crisis. Alongside our partners, we are ready to listen, learn, and enhance institutional capacity to build and act on evidence.

We provided impartial data on the effects of ongoing trade wars and supply chain disruptions

The Problem

The global trade regimes we knew have been upended, and new supply chain risks have emerged.

The world has entered a pivotal moment in the history of global economic cooperation. Since 2018, several rounds of trade wars have created a global trade regime that stands in sharp contrast to the one academics have been studying for the last fifty years. Meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic and other events have cast increased scrutiny on the resilience of global supply chains.

What We Did

We produced vital evidence on how these changes have affected consumers, businesses, and the economy.

Research by Tobin Center Faculty Affiliate Amit Khandelwal provided policymakers with vital evidence on how the 2018 and 2025 trade wars affected U.S. consumers, as well as high-quality estimates of the potential cost to U.S. consumers of ending a provision of U.S trade law that allowed low-cost goods to enter the country duty-free. Meanwhile, Tobin Center Faculty Affiliate Aleh Tsyvinski launched a novel tool for monitoring supply chain disruptions, helping companies and governments detect abnormalities in the flows of critical products and materials.

Reuters The New York Times

What Changed

Better evidence means better decisions.

As we enter uncharted territory on international trade, policymakers, business owners, consumers, and journalists need reliable data and evidence on how changes in global trade policy are affecting communities throughout the U.S. Faculty Affiliate Amit Khandelwal’s research on the short-run economic impacts of the 2025 Tariffs is being read, discussed, and considered across domestic and international policy contexts. It was cited by the Congressional Budget Office in written responses to the Senate Finance Committee, referenced by the Governor of the Bank of Italy, shared with the acting Chief Economic Advisor at the White House, and drew a response from a senior White House official.

We made the case for state-level expansions of free preschool

The Problem

On public early child care programs, a gap in research left policymakers in the dark.

The high cost of childcare is consuming family budgets nationwide. While states have explored several ways to subsidize the cost of care, they lacked rigorous research on how to maximize the potential benefits of investing in childcare affordability. To fill this gap in research, we supported a comprehensive study of a large-scale pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds in New Haven, Connecticut and learned that families who access free, full-day, universal early care earn more—for years to come. The research revealed that, when structured the right way, subsidized early care programs can set families on a better financial trajectory and unlock a high return on public investment.

What We Did

What Changed

States have a path forward–and they're taking action.

The research contributed to a "transformational" expansion of free early childcare in Connecticut. The new legislation signed by Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont in 2025 created an endowment for early childhood education that would eventually cover the full cost of infant and toddler care and preschool for mid- and low-income families.

Several other states–including Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Colorado–are following suit and referencing the research as they introduce legislation or mention early care expansions as priorities of their governors' offices.

Wall Street Journal CT Mirror

We corrected the narrative on biofuels as clean energy

The Problem

A bad economic model is justifying bad policy on biofuels.

Around the world, governments have long promoted the large-scale use of biofuels made from crops, arguing that biofuel use can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But those arguments relied on a series of outdated, complicated, low-quality economic models. Policymakers lacked a high-quality, empirical literature for developing new models that better estimate the impacts of biofuel use on land use, food prices, and carbon emissions.

What We Did

We ran the model ourselves–and uncovered its many flaws.

Academic work from Tobin Center Faculty Director Steve Berry and Senior Policy Fellow Tim Searchinger demonstrated that domestic biofuel production leads to tropical deforestation and likely causes overall increases in emissions while pushing up the cost of food in many low-income countries. Their work showed that years of misguided policy supercharged the use of biofuels and exacerbated global warming.

What Changed

The research inspired a book by a bestselling author–and is earning attention from government bodies around the world.

Berry and Searchinger's work was the focus of one of 2025's biggest climate books, and we continue to brief federal and state policymakers on how to better measure and regulate the use of biofuels. Informing or shifting public opinion is often the first step in the long road to policy change, and the work has inspired necessary conversations across the country.

Learn more