“MTF hopes this report catalyzes greater urgency and engagement from all segments of our society in the battle against the scourge of this epidemic — particularly among Massachusetts employers — by exploring and explaining the economic and fiscal impacts of the opioid epidemic on the state,” the group wrote. “We have no illusions that this crisis is fundamentally about economics.

According to a new report, the opioid epidemic is costing Massachusetts businesses more than $2.5 billion annually. The report from Boston public policy nonprofit Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said that figure comes from lost productivity and absenteeism and presenteeism.

The study from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the cost to the state’s economy at $7 billion in lost business productivity. The report concludes the opioid crisis is far from over and is likely to get worse, as more lethal synthetic drugs such as fentanyl proliferate. The foundation is hosting a forum Friday in Boston on the opioid epidemic.

"They're staggering," says Eileen McAnneny, MTF president, of the dollars spent on hospital care, EMTs, early intervention for infants and families, jails and the job productivity forfeited by individuals and employers. "We wanted folks to get a sense of the pervasiveness. It really impacts all major areas: health care, criminal justice, public safety and businesses."

“There’s an old business school adage that you can’t manage what you can’t measure, so we thought that quantifying the cost and providing a sense of the magnitude would motivate employers to engage more on this issue,” said foundation president Eileen McAnneny.

The taxpayers foundation estimates that opioid addiction kept nearly 33,000 people from participating in the labor force each year, on average, over the past five years. And the annual costs to health care providers total nearly $1 billion, some of which is paid by the taxpayer-funded MassHealth and other insurance programs.

"We have made tremendous progress, but we really need to have a bigger cushion," said Eileen McAnneny, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. The rainy day fund’s balance compared to the state's $41 billion operating budget — the most common metric of a reserve fund’s health — is about 4.9 percent, she said.

On the Wednesday, November 14 edition of Bloomberg Baystate Business we spoke with Eileen McAnneny, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, about their study on the economic impact of the opioid crisis on Massachusetts.

The fiscal 2019 state budget bill on Gov. Charlie Baker's desk counts on $63 million in legal marijuana taxes, a total the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says is unlikely to materialize. The foundation last week wrote in its analysis of the state budget bill that the marijuana licensing process "has proceeded more slowly than anticipated."

But the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Eileen McAnneny, is concerned there will no longer be a routine review of spending on police training. "There's less accountability," she says. "It doesn't go through the annual budgeting process where lawmakers make a conscious choice to continue to fund it."

"I think a sizable portion of it is due to federal tax reform, either directly or indirectly," said Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. McAnneny added that the economy is also doing well, although only time will tell how much of revenue is attributable to sustained economic growth rather than one-time money from the tax reform.

“You have to give some credit where credit is due: A lot of this revenue is affiliated with federal tax reform in some way or another,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said in an analysis of the new budget that it was unfortunate lawmakers did not lower marijuana revenue estimates, as they’re unlikely to hit the $63 million target.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said in an analysis of the new budget that it was unfortunate lawmakers did not lower marijuana revenue estimates, as they’re unlikely to hit the $63 million target.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, another business-backed group, said in a letter that legislators’ proposals would “significantly increase health care costs and create unintended care delivery consequences without providing an accountable or sustainable solution to price variation.”

Doug Howgate, director of policy and research at the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said he was not aware of an instance in the last 20 years or so in which a conference committee produced "just kind of an ad hoc increased number based on higher tax revenues." "I'm not familiar with anything like this year happening," he told the News Service.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has estimated that the low-income and English language learner recommendations would cost another $500 million to $700 million. But Doug Howgate, director of policy and research for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, acknowledged that those are "back of the envelope" calculations.

“It sounds like there are a lot of resources that could be reallocated and we need to have that conversation,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, budget negotiators face 185 non-spending Senate initiatives and 109 from the House. And while total spending in the two roughly $41.5 billion budgets differs by only $22 million, the budgets feature $304 million in unique House spending and $282 million in unique Senate spending, for a total of $586 million.

According to the business-backed watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the House-passed budget has 109 non-spending sections, while the Senate has 185. “As has been the case in recent years, the Senate budget includes significantly more policy provisions that the House,” the foundation said in a recent report.

Both are heavily larded with non-spending "policy" riders, to the tune of 109 in the House version and 185 in the Senate's, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, says industry assessments are not an ideal way of funding government services because the approach reduces spending accountability and hides the true cost of government.

According to a summary by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the Senate version of the state budget has 185 outside sections; the House has 109.

Using a higher estimate might enable Democrats in the House and Senate to resolve differences over spending proposals. The business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has also suggested an adjustment to the estimate might be warranted.

"Having revenues continue to exceed projections is welcome news,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “Because a large portion of this revenue is attributable to federal tax law changes, and may not be recurring, budget makers should still proceed with caution.”

AS A PLAINTIFF in the lawsuit Anderson v. Attorney General, I applaud the court’s decision, although I don’t consider myself or the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the organization that I represent, the winner. The real winner is our democracy.

According to the business-backed watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the House-passed budget has 109 non-spending sections, while the Senate has 185. “As has been the case in recent years, the Senate budget includes significantly more policy provisions that the House,” the foundation said in a report last week.

The House and Senate versions of the roughly $41 billion spending plan have similar bottom lines. But an analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation finds about $500 million in differences in how the money should be spent.

Capital gains taxes are assessed on investment gains and analysts have tied some portion of the spike in taxes to impacts of the new federal tax law. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation this week cautioned that a surge in sales of capital assets is temporary and can't be counted on for ongoing revenue.

In a report released Tuesday, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF) said revenue assumptions in the House and Senate budgets are similar, but there are “significant spending discrepancies between the two budgets.” If negotiators combined all new revenue sources from each budget, it would boost revenue by no more than $40 million — or about $228 million shy of the amount that would be

“It’s a great development,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “We need to replenish the stabilization fund because it will provide the cushion we need for the next economic downturn,” she said, using the formal name for the rainy day account.

According to a Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation analysis, the two budgets are relatively similar in terms of revenue, although the Senate counts on getting money from taxing Airbnb and other short-term room rentals and also on taking money out of a horse racing fund, which the House does not.

“The income surtax petition has raised legal, fiscal and economic concerns for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation,” said Eileen McAnneny, the group’s president. While the high court’s ruling addressed the legal concerns, she said, “the fiscal and economic ones remain as does our apprehension of embedding a tax in the constitution.

Those governments are now expected to swiftly start forcing online vendors to collect taxes. The Department of Revenue downplayed Thursday the potential impact on state revenues, but Eileen McAnneny, the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said the additional tax collections now could reach “potentially in the hundreds of millions.”

‘Logrolling’ Argument: Representatives for the business groups—Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership—had argued that the amendment paired an unpopular provision (the graduated income tax) with two popular ones

“We are not opposed to all taxes,” added Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and whose group was a plaintiff in the SJC case. “In fact, we have supported new revenue for transportation and we will likely do so again.” But if Beacon Hill is going to raise taxes, McAnneny said lawmakers have got to build voter support and show why more money is necessary.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation was one of five plaintiffs that challenged the ballot initiative, finding it "unconstitutional." President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Eileen McAnneny, told 22News, "It went far beyond the policy question of whether we should raise taxes on a subset of taxpayers. We opposed that for a number of reasons, but this question was not about that."

Attorney General Maura Healey ruled last year that the proposed amendment to the state’s constitution was legal, and qualified for the ballot, but opponents including executives from Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the Massachusetts High Technology Council and others disagreed.

he Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, one of five plaintiffs challenging the ballot question, hailed the ruling. “Today is a great day for all Massachusetts taxpayers because the court has upheld the time-honored constitutional principle that limits the initiative process,” Eileen McAnneny, the group’s president, said in a statement.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation meanwhile celebrated the ruling for backing “the time-honored constitutional principle that limits the initiative process.” “By rejecting the notion that a small special interest group can usurp legislative power by including unrelated tax and spending provisions in the same ballot initiative, the court has preserved the state’s ability to make delibe

Eileen McAnneny, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which joined in the lawsuit, said after the ruling that Monday was “a great day for all Massachusetts taxpayers,” because the court had upheld longstanding limitations on ballot questions.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is very pleased with the court’s decision. "There were enormous fiscal, legal, and economic implications of this ballot initiative, so I am very glad the court found in our favor," said McAnneny.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, called it a "great day for all Massachusetts taxpayers." "By rejecting the notion that a small special interest group can usurp legislative power by including unrelated tax and spending provisions in the same ballot initiative, the court has preserved the state's ability to make deliberative and fiscally sound choices," McAnneny

"This case was not about whether a graduated income tax is good public policy or bad public policy, it was about how the proponents tried to achieve it -- a method in direct violation of the Constitution under which the Legislature's deliberative taxing and spending authority would have been severely limited.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog group, said lawmakers have to beware of unintended consequences but added the proposal could help.

Doug Howgate of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said the group estimates the total new annual revenue from the car rental fee and community preservation surcharge alone would be in the range of $35 million to $50 million. “That’s a lot of money,” he said.

When it comes to the millionaire's tax, Eileen McAnneny, president and secretary of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said she's concerned about volatility, as well as revenues drying up in economic downturns. "So you build in a billion dollars more in education, and the money is there one year, and it's not the next," she said.

“As an organization dedicated to the long-term economic and fiscal health of the Commonwealth, the Foundation recognizes the need to address the costs of health care by taking unnecessary cost out of the system,” said Taxpayers Foundation president Eileen McAnneny, who will co-chair the coalition.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said employer groups will create a toolkit that explains “in plain English” the different locations where their workers can get medical care, and the different costs of those sites. “I think this is the start of something big,” McAnneny said of the initiative.

While the majority ER visits are necessary and often live-saving, business leaders say many less critical medical needs can be handled more effectively — and at a significantly lower cost — in other settings such as primary care practices or retail urgent care clinics. The coalition will be led by Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

"As an organization dedicated to the long-term economic and fiscal health of the Commonwealth, the Foundation recognizes the need to address the costs of health care by taking unnecessary cost out of the system," McAnneny said in a statement.

"Our plan is to provide employers with a toolkit, which will include appropriate information communicated in plain English about the most appropriate sites for care, why that's important, and how it impacts premiums," said Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

Senators added $75.5 million in spending during the three days of debate, much of it in earmarks for local projects, according to an analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

“This year, the similarities among the proposals outnumber the differences, which could be due in part to the small amount of discretionary dollars available,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

It also includes the state's four largest business advocacy groups — Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and Massachusetts Business Roundtable.

State spending has roughly doubled in the past 20 years. MassHealth, at $16.5 billion, accounts for 41 percent of spending, with much of that money flowing to health care providers. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, MassHealth spending grows by $518 million, the largest increase in any area of state spending, in the House budget proposal.

House lawmakers have filed 1,400 amendments to the spending plan, of which 1,049 have a quantifiable fiscal impact that would total $3.1 billion if all are adopted, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Last year, the House adopted amendments adding $77.7 million in spending to the budget.

“Health-care costs are already a burden for many families and employers across Massachusetts,” Eileen McAnneny, president of the Taxpayers Foundation, said in a prepared statement. “Massachusetts should use its health-care dollars to focus on more pressing priorities, like mental health care and addiction treatment, rather than this self-serving ballot initiative,” she said.

While House leaders touted areas of investment, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation recently cautioned that a growing portion of state revenues are being consumed by a few priorities, leaving a lot less money for lawmakers to invest in programs important to their constituents.

The business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has said lawmakers should establish a contingency plan in case the income tax question is not passed and the sales tax question passes. The foundation said one important step would be to commit a large amount of money to the state's rainy day fund and put any surplus money from this year into the rainy day fund.

The president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation told the assembled lunchtime crowd that the state's economy was strong. What's more, the economic recovery has lasted longer than those in the past, and state tax receipts are coming in above estimates.

Health care spending is the leading culprit as to why the state budget has been so tight despite good economic times, according to Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Eileen McAnneny.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog group, said State Police overtime pay partly reflects the increased demands on law enforcement in an era of heightened concern about terrorism.

While Senate leaders touted areas of investment on Thursday, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation recently cautioned that a growing portion of state revenues are being consumed by a few priorities, leaving a lot less money for lawmakers to invest in programs important to their constituents.

It's not clear where that money would come from. “It’s a big expenditure,” says Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “It’s being added to a budget that already has a structural deficit. So, figuring out how we pay for that is critically important.”

Mass. Taxpayers agrees, noting “Massachusetts already has a migration problem.” A net 475,000 people ($18.9 billion in adjusted gross income) left the state from 1993 to 2016. “The additional 4 percent income surtax will surely drive more Massachusetts taxpayers to change their state of tax residency.”

The new $10,000 limit will therefore cost those filers more than a third of their deductions and the aggregate cost is enormous. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the state’s filers will lose approximately $7.5 billion in deductions under the new law.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has estimated about 19,600 tax filers would be affected by the 4 percent tax, generating about $1.9 billion a year.

The out-of-pocket costs of retiring debt are reflected in Gov. Baker's fiscal 2019 budget, which sets aside $2.66 billion to make debt service payments over 12 months, a $49 million increase from this fiscal year's projected debt service spending, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

The idea for the commission came from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which released a report in late September suggesting that a third transportation finance commission was needed because existing revenues were uncertain, particularly because of cutbacks in federal spending and the rise of ride-sharing and electric vehicles, both of which have the potential to upend funds coming in from t

The plaintiffs who oppose it include top executives at Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Massachusetts High Technology Council, and the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership and the state chapter of National Federation of Independent Business also joined in the suit challenging Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey's 2015 ruling that certified the initiative petition.

Eileen McAnnenny, a member of the Group Insurance Commission board and the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said she abstained from the vote because she wanted more time to study the proposal.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said her group would like more money directed to the reserve fund. But she praised Baker’s overall fiscal management. “I think limiting the growth in spending to the overall rate of revenue growth is really important,” she said.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is "concerned long-term about potential impacts on federal revenue as our debt increases and federal spending could be reduced," McAnneny said. She said the law contains $6 trillion in cuts offset by $4.5 billion in hikes, for a net reduction in taxes of $1.5 trillion. What that revenue loss means for states is not yet clear, McAnneny said.

Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog, was more upbeat in her assessment. She praised Baker’s proposal for increasing funding for opioid addiction services, education, and aid to cities and towns. “My initial impression is a positive one,” she said.

One member of the new commission, Eileen McAnneny, is the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed watchdog group.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates that about a third of the state's taxpayers claim the deduction on state and local taxes, with the average deduction totaling about $17,000 in the 2015 tax year. The group estimates the $10,000 cap will result in the aggregate loss of about $7 billion in deductions.

The administration first announced it would create this transportation review commission in September, after the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation released a report that was critical of the state for not having an updated blueprint of how it is going to address transportation infrastructure and financing needs in the next decade, saying such a blueprint is needed given the advances in technology

The foundation estimates that the state's first commercial pot shops — expected to begin opening this summer — could generate between $32 million and $54 million in sales and excises taxes for the state.

According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, unrestricted local aid increased between fiscal 2016 and 2018 by 3.6 percent, 4.3 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively, while Chapter 70 aid increased by 2.54 percent, 2.58 percent and 2.57 percent.

As you read the bullish reports in the economic outlook in this week’s pages, be aware that cloudless skies don’t mean a storm can’t hit. A recent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report points out that the state’s overall budget has doubled from 15 years ago, while the so-called “rainy day fund” is $400 million lower.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has recommended, sensibly, setting aside that above-benchmark revenue to guard against changes in the tax structure next year, when two controversial questions related to taxes will be on the ballot. MTF also calls for a “sizable” deposit in the state’s rainy-day fund.

The hearing comes on the heels of a report released last week by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation reporting that of the $19 billion Bay State taxpayers could deduct under the system in place in 2015 before the passage of the new law, some $7.5 billion of that will no longer be available.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed group, said in an analysis that budget writers "struck a middle ground between conservative and optimistic approaches" in setting the consensus revenue figure. It also notes that the budget estimate does not take into account the potential impact of two proposed ballot questions that will appear on the November 2018 ballot.

In a report earlier this week, the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation noted that tax collections are running nearly $730 million above benchmarks through December and recommended the state use above-benchmark revenues to build its rainy day, or stabilization reserve, an area that credit rating agencies have flagged as a concern.

"For a lot of people in Massachusetts, they are going to feel the effect of the cap," Eileen McAnneny, foundation president, told the News Service. "People with higher incomes tend to deduct and itemize at a greater percentage than folks with more modest incomes.

"The revenue challenges of these ballot questions are compounded by problematic timing," according to MTF. "The fact that these questions will not be voted on until November -- more than four months after the FY 2019 budget is finalized, makes planning for them especially difficult."

There are more than 600 earmarks in the budget, totaling $121 million in spending, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Chandler said she met with the governor a “couple of weeks ago,” saying only that they talked about “things in general, basically. Just pleasantries.”

When she announced the commission at a Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation forum, Polito said the governor would sign an executive order "in the coming weeks" and that the commission would "further review, analyze and better inform the state's transportation capital needs," and look at how state revenues – the gas tax and vehicle registration fees, for instance – could shift along with changes

"This is just one more reason why Massachusetts might consider doing a comprehensive review of its tax code," Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Eileen McAnneny told the News Service on Tuesday. She said, "It absolutely has to be an academic exercise, not a political one."

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said in a midyear budget update that it's unknown how many Puerto Rican families are staying with friends and relatives here after Hurricane Maria landed a devastating blow on the island. Some school districts "already dealing with an unexpected influx of students related to the disaster," the foundation said.

The business-backed MTF, over the years, has become known for its sobering assessments of budget conditions that elected officials often portray in mostly positive terms. Its assessment of the $39.4 billion fiscal 2018 budget sticks to that theme, outlining issues to watch for in the coming months.

You can’t blame Eileen McAnneny, MTF’s president, for being a spoilsport. The GOP tax cuts could total $1.5 trillion over 10 years. It’s a no-brainer, McAnneny says, that Massachusetts will receive less from D.C. going forward as a result. (Federal funds support more than a quarter of the state’s budget.) The fact we have an all-Democratic delegation doesn’t help.

“Forecasting state tax revenues 18 months into the future is always risky as unforeseen events often undermine predictions as the past three years have shown,” the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said in a statement. The nonpartisan fiscal research group offered a more conservative estimate of 2.8 percent growth in state tax collections next year.

"Predicting revenues in FY 2019 is more daunting than usual because there are several upcoming events over the next 12 months, any one of which will have major impacts on state tax revenues, but those impacts are unknowable right now," MTF wrote in its forecast. "Taken together, these events could dramatically alter the state's fiscal health." MTF said federal tax legislation could have "a major impact" on the state's finances, but said that three possible 2018 ballot questions — imposing a 4 percent surtax on income greater than $1 million, reducing the sales tax rate from 6.25 percent to 5 percent, and a paid family and medical leave initiative -- "could make irrelevant the forecasts presented at today's hearing."

"But whenever it comes in, it is one-time revenue, and we're suggesting that that money go into the stabilization fund," McAnneny told the committees. "We think this is really important for two reasons. One, there is a statutory requirement that excess capital gains be deposited into the stabilization fund, but also I think because there is a very atypical and perhaps unprecedented amount of uncertainty regarding other tax revenues." With the pending federal tax legislation and a trio of potential ballot questions that could shake up the state's finances -- a sales tax reduction, a surtax on incomes over $1 million, and a paid family and medical leave program -- MTF recommended that the state deposit at least $500 million from this year's and next year's revenues into the rainy day fund.

The business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said any movement on tax reform could result in a one-time surge in capital gains tax revenues, as investors sell assets based on the anticipated shift in tax policy.

McAnneny also warns that some of the money from the millionaires’ tax might not materialize. “It’s likely to be less than [what the state estimates],” she said. “We’ve seen that in other states that have enacted similar policies, namely New Jersey and Connecticut.

The plaintiffs run influential business-backed groups, including the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, and the National Federation of Independent Business’s Massachusetts arm.