Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Florida renters struggle with housing costs, new statewide report finds
Nearly 905,000 low-income renter households in Florida are struggling to afford their housing costs, according to the 2025 Statewide Rental Market Study, released by the University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies. Prepared for Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the report provides a comprehensive look at the state’s rental housing conditions and is used to guide funding decisions for Florida Housing’s multifamily programs, including the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program. “Florida’s strong population growth has collided with limited housing supply, pushing rents beyond what many families can afford,” said Anne Ray, manager of the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse at the Shimberg Center. “This report helps policymakers and housing providers target resources where the need is most acute — including communities that are experiencing the fastest growth and the greatest affordability gaps.” Key findings from the 2025 study include: A growing affordability gap: An estimated 904,635 renter households earning below 60% of their area median income (AMI) are cost burdened, paying more than 40% of their income toward rent. These households are spread across the state, with 64% in Florida's nine most populous counties, 33% in mid-sized counties and 3% in small, rural counties. Surging population and higher rent and housing costs: Between 2019 and 2023, Florida added more than 1 million households — nearly 195,000 of them renters — driven by in-migration from states like New York, Illinois and California. Despite the addition of more than 240,000 multifamily units, median rent soared nearly $500 per month, from $1,238 to $1,719. After years of growth, Florida's older renter population is holding steady: Renters age 55 and older represent 39% of cost burdened households, up from 29% in 2010 but similar to 2022 numbers. Most renters are working: 79% of renter households include at least one employed adult, compared to 67% of owner households. Most non-working renters are seniors or people with disabilities. Homelessness is on the rise: The report estimates 29,848 individuals and 44,234 families are without stable housing, up from 2022, as hurricanes and tight markets contribute to displacement. Assisted housing provides an alternative to high-cost private market rentals: Developments funded by Florida Housing, HUD, USDA and local housing finance authorities provide over 314,000 affordable rental units statewide. Future risks to affordable housing stock: More than 33,000 publicly assisted units may lose affordability protections by 2034 unless renewed. Evalu ating affordable housing in Florida “State- and federally-assisted rental housing developments are essential to providing stable, affordable homes for Florida’s workforce, seniors, and people with special needs,” Ray said. “Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s programs make up a significant portion of this housing, and our study helps ensure those resources are directed where they’re needed most. Preserving these developments — and expanding them — is critical to keeping pace with Florida’s growing population and maintaining affordability.” Since 2001, the Shimberg Center has produced the Rental Market Study every three years to inform strategic investments in affordable housing across Florida. The study evaluates needs across regions and among key populations including seniors, people with disabilities, farmworkers and others. The Rental Market Study and the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse are part of a 25-year partnership between the Shimberg Center and Florida Housing Finance Corporation to support data-driven housing policy and planning.
Laura Mauldin's rule of thumb is that if you think you're caregiving, you probably are. The University of Connecticut professor and author has a new book that just been released In Sickness and in Health, where an urgent argument is made that America’s caregiving crisis is not a private family matter, but a structural and political failure. Mauldin isn't just a scholar in the field. She also speaks from personal experience about the impact of caregiving -- as well as how society views and values it -- on both caregivers and those that they care for. It may not have been the birthday present then 32-year-old Laura Mauldin wanted to buy herself, but purchasing long-term care insurance was something she knew she needed. Mauldin, an associate professor in UConn’s Department of Social and Critical Inquiry, had been caring for her sick partner the five years prior, watching as cancer destroyed the promise of a long life. “It’s not about being morbid, rather it’s about recognizing the inevitability of a completely typical, expectable part of life,” Mauldin says of her advanced planning. “Why not just go ahead and in a neutral way have a plan? Then it’s there, you don’t have to worry, and you can feel more prepared.” A detailed account of her caregiving experience is the launching point for her new book, “In Sickness and in Health,” released this month by HarperCollins’ Ecco Press, in which she tells the story of a handful of couples from around the country who she came to know over years of spending time with them, oftentimes days and nights. “I grew to love these people and to care about them,” she says. “Their stories tell us something bigger about our culture, about our society, and about our choices around care policy and care systems. Theirs are the hidden stories that are going on behind millions of closed doors.” In her quest to bring discussions about caregiving to the light of day, Mauldin sat with UConn Today recently to talk about the different forms that caregiving can take, the result of absent social safety nets, and how ableism permeates the culture. February 2026 - UConn Today Drawing from her new book, Mauldin blends her personal experience with sociological research to show how love, marriage, and devotion are routinely forced to compensate for weak public policy, limited Medicaid support, and a culture shaped by ableism. Her work reframes caregiving as essential labor, deeply gendered, largely invisible, and profoundly political, and challenges the notion that “love is enough” in a system that offers far too little support. It’s an old adage: when people get married, they promise to stick together “in sickness and in health.” But that’s easier said than done when you’re caregiving for a spouse or long-term partner, when systemic failures often lead to burnout. In her new book, In Sickness and in Health: Love Stories from the Front Lines of America’s Caregiving Crisis, University of Connecticut professor Laura Mauldin explores the relationships between caregivers and their disabled and sick spouses, and the underlying lack of structural support in the US that makes unpaid care an inescapable feature of most such relationships. The topic is personal for her: Maudlin’s partner’s leukemia came out of remission as they were getting closer in 2006. “Falling in love with J had called upon me to increasingly fill a role that required meeting nearly every one of her needs,” Mauldin writes in her introduction. “This was more than just providing emotional support when the person you love is suffering.” J passed away in 2010. I spoke to Mauldin about crafting this book based on her lived experiences, how systems fail both disabled people and their caregivers, and what is at stake with Medicaid cuts exacerbating the damage to an already broken system. February 2026 - Mother Jones Dr. Laura Mauldin, an associate professor in the Department of Social and Critical Inquiry at the University of Connecticut, blends rigorous scholarship with lived experience to challenge prevailing assumptions about caregiving, disability, and public policy. Her work exposes how cultural norms and policy gaps intersect to offload care onto private homes, obscuring the true costs of care and the human toll of under-resourced support systems. She is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Beyond the field: New research highlights how NIL is reshaping college athlete identity
In an era of name, image and likeness, or NIL, many college athletes are thinking differently about who they are — seeing themselves not just as competitors or students, but also as influencers with distinct voices and causes, according to a new study from the University of Florida. Molly Harry, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the Department of Sport Management at the UF College of Health and Human Performance, surveyed 200 athletes from 21 Power Four universities to better understand how NIL, which refers to the rights of college athletes to earn money through endorsements, sponsorships, social media promotions and other commercial opportunities, has impacted the way athletes perceive their roles and identities. “Historically, we’ve viewed them (college athletes) through the lens of athletics or academics, but they’re daughters, brothers, role models, and increasingly, they’re now cultivating public personas and marketing skills.” —Molly Harry, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the Department of Sport Management The findings, published Friday in the Sociology of Sport Journal, reveal a growing recognition among athletes that they are more than the two-dimensional “student-athlete” model that is traditionally used in research and policy. “With the shift in NIL policies, athletes are starting to develop roles and identities related to that of the influencer,” Harry said. “Historically, we’ve viewed them through the lens of athletics or academics, but they’re daughters, brothers, role models, and increasingly, they’re now cultivating public personas and marketing skills.” Through survey responses across seven major sports — football, baseball, men’s and women’s basketball, gymnastics, volleyball and softball — Harry and UF doctoral student Hannah Kloetzer examined athletes' engagement with NIL opportunities, as well as the personal sacrifices they made to pursue them. They found that many athletes now view NIL as a platform to promote causes they care about, build connections with their communities and explore career pathways after college. One softball player described the value of NIL in a way that highlights the broader impact: “It’s been great to feel seen and have your hard work in a sport help in other parts of life. It’s really nice to use NIL on a resume as marketing experience.” Athletes surveyed said they found deals not just with big-name brands, but more often with local businesses like restaurants, boutiques and community partners. This entrepreneurial approach often required initiative and personal outreach, something many athletes had to learn on their own. “Some athletes told us they felt lost when trying to navigate NIL,” Harry said. “Others shared how they reached out to local businesses or organized their own camps.” One particularly striking finding, Harry said, was that some athletes were making athletic sacrifices — like spending less time training — to pursue NIL work, a shift that underscores the importance of these opportunities. Harry stressed that while no one reported skipping practices, athletes did acknowledge shifting their priorities to make room for NIL-related endeavors. “If you’re willing to give up something in your athletic routine, that speaks volumes about how central NIL — and influencer identities — could become for some athletes,” she said. Another key insight: football players of color from low socioeconomic backgrounds were most likely to self-identify as influencers. This emerging pattern stands in contrast to perceived broader trends in the social media world. “That was one of the most fascinating takeaways,” Harry said. “We have this unique subset of influencers — college football athletes — that are starting to enter this space.” Harry’s research builds on a growing conversation in the academic community about the evolving identity of college athletes. A few conceptual pieces have previously proposed the idea of a “student-athlete-influencer,” but Harry’s team is one of the first to gather empirical data to back it up. This new perspective has broad implications for how universities and organizations like the NCAA support college athletes, both during their playing years and as they prepare for life after sport. “As fans, we often see athletes as commodities on the field,” Harry said. “But they’re humans first, and they’re starting to recognize their own value and tap into their potential beyond the playing field.” In addition to academic and athletic support, Harry believes universities should invest in more targeted resources tailored to influencer pressures, like mentorship opportunities and training that goes beyond basic social media etiquette. “Athletes who take on influencer roles may deal with unique stressors, whether it’s comparing engagement numbers or coping with public scrutiny,” she said. “It would be valuable to provide opportunities where athlete-influencers can support each other, share strategies and protect their mental health.” A football player who participated in the study summed up the broader potential of NIL: “I’m very appreciative of NIL opportunities and the ability to continue to grow my camp and greater brand outside of my football program.” Looking ahead, Harry plans to explore this evolving identity through more qualitative research, with a focus on what it truly means to be an “influencer” in the context of college athletics. “Athletes are more than football players. They are more than swimmers,” she said. “They are people who we walk with on our college campuses, and they are people who bring value to our society in a host of ways.”
Exploring everyday finance, gender, and the future of pensions
Money in everyday life For Dr Hayley James, finance isn’t just numbers on a balance sheet - it’s woven into the realities of everyday life. From saving and borrowing to the challenge of long-term pension planning, her work at Aston University’s Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing (CPFW) explores how financial decisions are shaped by family, gender, life stage, and stability of income. Her research stems from her PhD, which examined how people make decisions after being automatically enrolled into workplace pensions - a starting point that sparked her continuing focus on pensions and everyday financial behaviour. “Finance is often portrayed as objective, but in reality, our money decisions are tied up with all the other meaningful factors in our lives.” – Hayley James At CPFW, Dr. James and her colleagues have observed a shift in policy and industry thinking. Where once the focus was on pushing people to act in “rational” financial ways, attention is now turning to redesigning systems that reflect how people actually manage money. Gender and the pension gap A key focus of Dr. James’ research has been pensions, particularly how gender and life events shape saving habits. She has found that parenthood has very different impacts on men and women’s retirement planning: Motherhood often discourages pension saving - reducing both capacity and perceived importance. Fatherhood often encourages saving - reinforcing traditional financial roles. While many assume household specialisation balances out, reality shows otherwise: separation or divorce often leaves women financially disadvantaged. These insights underpin her book Pension Saving in a Gendered Lifecourse (2025), which argues for pension systems that move beyond gender neutral models to become gender friendly - systems that acknowledge the very different realities men and women face across their life course. Tracking real lives: the “Real Accounts” project Beyond pensions, Dr James has led research into how people actually manage day-to-day finances. In the Real Accounts project, she and colleagues followed UK households for 10 months, recording income and spending in real time. The findings reveal how income volatility — sudden drops, irregular hours, unexpected bills — creates stress and undermines financial stability. These insights are helping policymakers and providers rethink how products like pensions, credit, and debt advice are designed. Collaboration and impact Dr. James’ work bridges academia, policy, and practice. Partnerships include: Nest Insight – public-benefit research centre, co-leads on Real Accounts. Glasgow Caledonian University – joint research on household finances. Christians Against Poverty – literature review on measuring the impact of debt advice, aimed at improving frontline support for the most vulnerable. Through these collaborations, her findings are already shaping practical change in how organisations design support for households under financial strain. Looking ahead With her British Academy Innovation Fellowship concluding, Dr. James is turning to new questions: How do diverse households — across sexuality, ability, ethnicity, and household structure — navigate finance? How can financial systems evolve to reflect real lives, not abstract models? Her book sets out a roadmap for rethinking pensions through a gendered lens — offering policymakers, providers, and households a new way to understand and prepare for later life. Selected publications For readers who want to explore her research in more depth, here are a few recent publications: • James, H. (2022). Everyday finance and the politics of financial subjectivity. Review of International Political Economy. • James, H. (2022). Financial wellbeing and the lived experience of income volatility. New Political Economy. • James, H. (2023). Household finance and the gendered lifecourse: Reframing pensions research. In Handbook on Everyday Finance (Edward Elgar). Available via RePEc. ⸻ About Dr. Hayley James Dr. Hayley James is a Senior Research Fellow at Aston University’s Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing. Her research spans pensions, household finance, and the social context of money. She has published widely and works closely with policy and community partners to translate research into action. To explore more of the Centre’s work and access project reports, visit the CPFW Projects page at Aston University. Connect with Hayley by clicking the profile icon below.
Rethinking AI in the classroom: A literacy-first approach to generative technology
As schools nationwide navigate the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence, educators are searching for guidance that goes beyond fear, hype or quick fixes. Rachel Karchmer-Klein, associate professor of literacy education at the University of Delaware, is helping lead that conversation. Her latest book, Putting AI to Work in Disciplinary Literacy: Shifting Mindsets and Guiding Classroom Instruction, offers research-based strategies for integrating AI into secondary classrooms without sacrificing critical thinking or deep learning. Here is how she is approaching the complex topic. Q: Your new book focuses on AI in disciplinary literacy. What is the central message? Karchmer-Klein: Rather than positioning AI as a shortcut or replacement for student thinking, the book emphasizes a literacy-first approach that helps students critically evaluate, interrogate, and apply AI-generated information. This is important because schools and universities are grappling with rapid AI adoption, often without clear guidance grounded in learning theory, literacy research, or classroom practice. Q: What inspired this research? Karchmer-Klein: The book grew directly out of my work with preservice teachers, practicing educators, and school leaders who were asking practical but complex questions about AI: How do we use it responsibly? How do we prevent over-reliance? How do we teach students to question what AI produces? I also saw a gap between public conversations about AI which often focused on fear or efficiency and what teachers actually need: research-informed strategies that support deep learning. My long-standing research in digital literacies provided a natural foundation for addressing these questions. Q: What are some of the key findings from your work? Karchmer-Klein: AI is most effective when it is embedded within strong instructional design and disciplinary literacy practices, not treated as a stand-alone tool. The research and classroom examples illustrate that AI can support student learning when it is used to prompt reasoning, reveal misconceptions, provide feedback for revision, and encourage multiple perspectives. Another important development is the emphasis on teaching students to evaluate AI outputs critically by recognizing bias, inaccuracies, and limitations, rather than assuming correctness. Q: How could this work impact schools, teacher education programs and the broader public? Karchmer-Klein: For educators, this work provides concrete, evidence-based literacy strategies coupled with AI in ways that strengthen, not dilute, student thinking. For teacher education programs and school districts, it offers a research-based framework for professional development and policy conversations around AI use. More broadly, the work speaks to a public concern about how emerging technologies are shaping learning, helping to reframe AI as something that requires human judgment, ethical consideration, and strong literacy skills to use well. ABOUT RACHEL KARCHMER-KLEIN Rachel Karchmer-Klein is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Delaware where she teaches courses in literacy and educational technology at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels. She is a former elementary classroom teacher and reading specialist. Her research investigates relationships among literacy skills, digital tools, and teacher preparation, with particular emphasis on technology-infused instructional design. To speak with Karchmer-Klein further about AI in literacy education, critical evaluation of AI-generated content and teacher preparation in the era of generative AI, reach out to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
When individuals sign up for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, the extent to which they ever think about their genetic data is likely in the context of the service for which they paid: information on predisposition to a genetic illness, or confirmation of an ethnic background, for example. But that data doesn’t just sit on a shelf, and while the most mainstream concern for such services is the privacy of your data, there is also the question of what else the companies do with it, and how. Ana Santos Rutschman, SJD, LLM, professor and faculty director of the Health Innovation Lab at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, is particularly interested in the latter. In June 2025, she co-authored an amicus brief centered on data protection and patient’s interests amid genetic testing company 23andMe’s bankruptcy proceedings. In December, many of those same co-authors published a paper in Nature Genetics, highlighting 23andMe’s bankruptcy as “an inflection point for the direct-to-consumer genetics market,” especially as it pertains to the broader corporate use of individuals’ scientific data. The reason? “How that data is used all depends on the policies of the individual companies,” she said. Genetic Testing Companies Use Your Data For More Than The Services You Pay For Those who utilize genetic testing companies—for any reason—are likely also consenting, often unknowingly, to other unrelated items. This includes acknowledgment of information related to how your data might be further used or monetized. “Most people don't think about secondary and tertiary uses of their data,” said Professor Rutschman. “[What they consent to] is displayed on the website somewhere, but it’s not easily understandable and accessible. It’s fine print.” Such companies often operate beyond the traditional “fee for a service” relationship with consumers. Yes, they will give you the information you paid for—finding out whether you have German ancestry or are predisposed to certain genetic disease—but instead of that genetic data just being stored somewhere, it’s often sold for research purposes. Today, in the age of AI big data, that might look something like this: The company puts your data in a box with parameters, along with thousands of others. Perhaps they are then able to observe a pattern that, until all that data was compiled, was previously unknown. They come up with a diagnostic or a medicine and patent it. That patent is licensed to somebody else, and the company makes money on the product. The use of that data for scientific purposes—even ones that turn a profit— is not problematic in itself, says Professor Rutschman. “Some people may even choose a company that allows scientific research over one that doesn’t. Many people may not care, but some will. The uses are not common knowledge, and that is worrisome. The public should be well-informed about what’s happening.” Deeper problems may arise when they aren’t informed of those potential uses of their data. Professor Rutschman cited the infamous Henrietta Lacks case, in which Lacks’ cells were, and continue to be, one of the most valuable cell lines in cancer research. Neither Lacks nor her family were paid for the widespread use of her genetic material until a settlement was reached long after her death. “When you have biologics involved, a concern is that if you have something potentially valuable, you may not see any money from it.” Bankruptcy Can Cause Policy Upheaval To understand the role bankruptcy can play in all of this, one needs to refer back to the power of individual company policy in this space. There are no external laws that dictate how these companies can further monetize their data, says Professor Rutschman, as long as they don’t violate other laws, such as privacy laws. That means that when a company like 23andMe goes bankrupt, as was the case in 2025, new ownership could enact completely different corporate policies for use of their property. In their specific case, the company was essentially bought back by 23andMe founder and CEO Anne Wojcicki’s non-profit, all but ensuring policies would remain the same. But that is exactly why Professor Rutschman and others are highlighting this specific case. “Bankruptcy is bad in the sense that there's a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “In this instance, the person coming in was the person who was there before, so the policy is likely to continue. But that's very rare. There are a roster of companies with access to biological materials. 23andMe is a good example of something not going horribly wrong, but with the understanding that it absolutely could.” Ways in which that could happen could be new ownership undermining the original intent of the data use by cessation of the company’s previous policies, or charging exorbitant prices to other entities to use that data for scientific research. “Because there is no law, these new owners can essentially do as they please with their proprietary data, unless they do something incredibly careless that amounts to the level of illegal,” Professor Rutschman said. “And that is concerning.” Onus Falls to Companies to Enact Safeguards To ensure a worst-case scenario for such companies does not unfold in a bankruptcy situation, Professor Rutschman points to a number of safeguards they could enact to protect their original commitments, ensure equitable access to data for scientific research and promote fair trade. One of which is implementing a company policy stating that commitments from a previous iteration of the company need to be honored if ownership is transferred. Those could include, as the authors recommend, policies “honoring original research-oriented commitments under which the data were collected,” as well as not “enclosing the dataset for exclusive commercial use.” She also highlights the need for Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) voluntary licensing commitments, which are inherently more science and market friendly. “Companies in many sectors have committed to this approach, and we are saying it should apply in this space as well. You’ll charge your royalty, but it can’t be a billion dollars for a data set, nor would it be done by exclusively selling to one entity. You can get that billion dollars by selling to 15, 50 or 100 companies, and from a scientific research perspective, that’s what we want. Otherwise, you have a monopoly or duopoly. “There are a lot of different models that can be used, but ultimately what we are arguing is leaving this unaddressed is a really bad idea. It leaves everything exposed, and something bad is more likely to happen.”
Covering the Economy? FAU has the ideal expert to help with your questions and stories
The economy isn’t just a headline, it’s the story behind nearly every headline. From grocery bills and mortgage rates to job growth, small business confidence, and federal policy decisions, economic forces shape daily life for Americans in ways that are immediate and deeply personal. For journalists, that makes the economy a constant, high-stakes beat. Audiences want clear answers: Why are prices rising? Are we headed for a slowdown? What does the Fed’s next move mean for my community? The challenge is cutting through jargon and partisan spin to deliver insight that’s accurate, grounded, and understandable. That’s where William Luther, Ph.D., stands out. A respected economist and Associate Professor at Florida Atlantic University, Luther brings serious academic credibility, but explains economic trends in plain language that resonates beyond the classroom. His expertise in monetary policy, inflation, unemployment, cryptocurrency, and economic growth makes him a valuable resource for breaking news, enterprise stories, and long-form analysis alike. Whether reporters are covering Florida’s housing market, national interest rate decisions, or the future of digital currency, Luther offers thoughtful, balanced analysis that helps audiences understand not just what’s happening, but why it matters. William Luther, Ph.D., is an expert in monetary economics and macroeconomics. He is an associate professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, director of the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project, and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives. The Social Science Research Network currently ranks him in the top five percent of business authors. View his profile Recent media coverage: ABC News Others downplayed the likelihood of a meaningful loss of Fed independence, since news of the DOJ investigation of Powell drew a rare degree of Republican opposition. Powell holds only a single vote on the 12-member board responsible for setting interest rates, they said. “Anytime we’re changing institutions, we should have some concern,” William Luther, a professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, told ABC News. “At the same time, we should recognize the institutional safeguards we have are pretty strong.” Newsweek William Luther, associate professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, said that the immediate net financial loss to those in Florida, and all Americans, appears to be "very, very large." Luther added Florida should expect a short-term "sharp contraction" in real estate and tourism, both vital sectors for the state's economy. NPR At the moment, the economy is performing very well. It wasn't performing very well not too long ago, both because of the pandemic, which reduced our ability to produce goods and services quite significantly, and then, as a result of some of the policy responses to that pandemic, we had very high inflation. NBC Will Luther, an economics associate professor at Florida Atlantic University, acknowledged the concerns among students. "Absolutely, there are students very much concerned with whether or not they will be able to get a job when they finish here. The good news is that they will. The bad news is it's a little harder right now than it was, say, two years ago," Luther said. Fox Nation FAU's William Luther joins Fox Nation's Deep Dive, hosted by the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, to discuss the economic impact of cryptocurrencies. Video courtesy of Fox Nation's Deep Dive.
Brian Levine, M.D., Named Chief Academic Officer and Intellectual Property Administrator
ChristianaCare announced Feb. 12 the promotion of Brian Levine, M.D., to chief academic officer, along with his appointment as intellectual property administrator. He will also continue in his role as designated institutional official. As chief academic officer and leader of ChristianaCare’s Department of Academic Affairs, Levine oversees 38 residency and fellowship programs encompassing 315 residents and fellows, along with the education and training of students across the continuum of medical education. He leads the continued growth and strengthening of ChristianaCare’s undergraduate and graduate medical education infrastructure, ensuring that ChristianaCare continues to prepare physicians to care for our community well into the future. In addition, Levine oversees physician assistant education and allied health educational programming, supporting workforce development and long-term community health needs. As the largest academic medical center between Philadelphia and Baltimore, ChristianaCare has been a hub of academic excellence for over a century. ChristianaCare is one of the largest community-based teaching hospital systems in the United States. ChristianaCare also serves as the Delaware Branch Campus for Sidney Kimmel Medical College and the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. This unique program allows medical students to complete their third and fourth years of clinical rotations exclusively at ChristianaCare, providing a clear pathway to launch their medical careers in Delaware. Each year, 55 students participate in the Branch Campus program, with many continuing into ChristianaCare’s highly sought-after residency programs and remaining in Delaware to serve local communities. ChristianaCare is a destination of choice for medical students and residents because of its strong patient-centered culture, reputation for excellence, and diversity of clinical experiences that include urban and suburban campuses with a wide range of pathologies. In his newly expanded role as intellectual property administrator, Levine manages and enforces ChristianaCare’s intellectual property policy, ensuring fair and consistent application in alignment with applicable laws and regulations. He also leads the multidisciplinary committee responsible for guiding organizational decisions related to intellectual property valuation, commercialization strategies and revenue distribution. Levine brings deep experience in academic medicine, health system education and scholarly publishing to these responsibilities. An emergency physician, he led the development of widely used clinical reference guides published by the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association. These pocket-sized tools — covering topics such as antibiotic stewardship, orthopedic injury management, and EKG interpretation — are used by thousands of emergency medicine residents worldwide. Levine has held leadership roles at ChristianaCare for nearly two decades. Since 2018, he has served as associate chief academic officer and designated institutional official. Previously, he was program director of the Emergency Medicine Residency program from 2012 to 2018 and associate program director from 2006 to 2012. Levine is a clinical professor of Emergency Medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and previously served as associate medical director for the LifeNet aeromedical transport program. He earned his medical degree from the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine and completed his emergency medicine residency at ChristianaCare.
Carney Cares. The Tax Code Doesn’t.
Retirement analyst and author Sue Pimento looks more closely at the just-announced "Canada Groceries & Essentials Benefit Program" in the broader context of the country's overall tax-and-benefit system. A closer analysis of steep GIS clawbacks layered on top of taxes shows that some seniors face tax rates comparable to those of the country's highest earners. Pimento argues that we should address this “participation tax” to ensure seniors earn more without being penalized for their work. Prime Minister Mark Carney just announced the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit. The intent is good. The relief is welcome. The tax code, however, did not get the memo. Important Disclaimer (Please Read) This article is for educational and discussion purposes only and does not constitute financial or tax advice. Canada's tax and benefit system is complex, highly individualized, and subject to frequent changes. Before making any financial or tax decisions, consult a qualified professional familiar with seniors' benefits, including GIS, OAS, CPP, and related clawbacks. Now that we've cleared that up, let's talk… Here’s a quick overview of what was announced. What the Canada Groceries & Essentials Benefit Program Covers Bigger Benefit Cheques: About 12 million Canadians will receive relief. Food Bank Relief: $20 million to food banks through the Local Food Infrastructure Fund. Food Supply: Immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings to bolster domestic production. Food Security: A national strategy including unit price labelling and enforcement by the Competition Bureau. Business Support: $500 million in supply chain support to help businesses absorb costs rather than passing them on to consumers. These ideas aren’t bad. Some are very sensible. Taken together, the Government estimates in its announcement that these measures would "provide up to an additional $402 to a single individual without children, $527 to a couple, and $805 to a couple with two children. They go on to say that at these levels, Canada’s new government will be offsetting grocery cost increases beyond overall inflation since the pandemic." On paper, this looks helpful. Unfortunately, paper has never had to buy groceries. But… You knew there was a “but” coming. Government announcements are legally required to include one. A Little-Known Tax Reality That Makes You Shake Your Head New research shows Canada's tax-and-benefit system disadvantages low-income seniors who work. The issue? It's hidden in the tax code. On January 28, 2026, a Zoomer Radio Fight Back discussion hosted by Libby Znaimer highlighted the issue. Guests included: • Gabriel Giguère, Senior Policy Analyst, Montreal Economic Institute • Jamie Golombek, Managing Director, Tax & Estate Planning, CIBC Financial Planning & Advice Their conclusion? Canada's tax system discourages low-income seniors from working exactly when they need income the most. Many seniors discover (usually the hard way) that a small side hustle doesn't always pay off. It can lead to higher taxes and benefit clawbacks. Work a little more, and Ottawa takes a lot more. Why Seniors Are Still Working Because the math doesn't add up. Either way. More than 600,000 older adults live below the poverty line. Meanwhile, rent, food, utilities, insurance, and property taxes are increasing faster than pensions ever did. More seniors are employed, particularly GIS recipients. MEI analysis indicates that GIS recipients with work income increased by 56% from 2014 to 2022, rising to 64% among those aged 65–69. These seniors aren't working for "fun money." They're working to keep the lights on and purchase medication. Reviewing the details reminded me of a long-standing issue in my research on income and cash flow for Canadians aged 55 and over. Many Canadians can’t make ends meet and are forced to work well past 65. Yet Canada’s tax system punishes low-income seniors for working—exactly when they need income most. To understand why, we need to look at the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Program for Low-Income Seniors Here's how the GIS benefits work: • A non-taxable monthly benefit on top of Old Age Security for low-income seniors. • Roughly one-third of OAS recipients also receive GIS—over 2 million Canadians. • For a single senior with no other income, the maximum annual benefit is about $13,000. (Source: Government of Canada GIS website) The program has done meaningful work. Combined with OAS, CPP, and private pensions, Canada dramatically reduced senior poverty over the past half-century. But there’s a catch hiding in the design. Think of GIS as a hug that tightens when you try to stand up. The GIS Clawback Problem for Canadians GIS recipients can earn only $5,000 per year in employment income before clawbacks begin. After that, GIS takes back 50 cents of every dollar earned—before income tax and payroll deductions. A partial exemption applies to the next $10,000, where 25–37.5% is clawed back. The program helps seniors—right up until they try to help themselves. How the GIS Clawback Works Against Working Seniors Let me illustrate this. Meet Agnes. She is about to learn more about marginal tax rates than any bookstore employee should. Agnes is between 65 and 69 years old, lives alone, and receives OAS and CPP. Rising costs push her to take a job at a local used bookstore. She works about 15 hours a week at roughly minimum wage. Here annual gross employment income is about $13,000 Here’s what happens: • Her employment income triggers GIS clawbacks once she exceeds $5,000. • She pays income tax, CPP contributions, and sometimes EI premiums. • Between taxes and clawbacks, much of her earnings disappear. Simple version: Agnes works more hours but keeps far less than expected. When you keep 20 cents on the dollar, even capitalism looks confused. Agnes didn’t go back to work for the thrill of alphabetizing mystery novels. She did it to afford her prescriptions. A Canadian Tax System That Punishes the Wrong Thing If we’re going to test income, test investment income. Fine. Tax it. But employment income? Showing up? Working? The system treats that like misconduct. Once you add income tax, CPP contributions, and the loss of other credits, low-income seniors can face effective marginal tax rates of 70–80% on modest earnings. Nothing says “fairness” like taxing a bookstore clerk harder than a boardroom executive. As Gabriel Giguère of the Montreal Economic Institute has noted, "this level of taxation normally applies to wealthy Canadians—not seniors living in poverty." In a well-researched economic brief, Giguère and Jason Dean, Assistant Professor of Economics at King’s University College at Western Ontario, present a compelling argument for policy change. This comment by Giguère and Dean nicely sums up their key findings: "For various reasons, including insufficient pensions to maintain their living standards, seniors are increasingly turning to work. Yet the current tax-and-benefit system merits reform as it undermines their efforts, with the harshest effect on low-income seniors." One-Time Credits Don’t Fix Structural Problems At Davos, Mark Carney famously said, “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” Fair point. So why does our benefit system still behave as if retirement lasts ten years and ends with a gold watch? The system still thinks retirement lasts ten years and includes a gold watch. People are living longer. Many will spend 25 to 30 years in retirement. Some want to work. Many need to. A grocery credit helps. But a broken incentive structure still breaks people. Common Sense Tax Solutions the Canadian Government Should Consider 1. Raise the GIS earnings exemption The Montreal Economic Institute recommends raising it to around $30,000. Estimated cost: $544 million annually. Modest relative to the program’s size. 2. Exempt employment income from GIS clawbacks (at least partially) Keep testing investment income. Stop penalizing work. 3. Rethink retirement assumptions Policy built around “retire at 65 and earn almost nothing” no longer matches reality. None of these ideas are radical. They’re just… current. What to Ask Your Accountant About Your Tax Rate Get professional advice. Not generic advice. Not from Google. Not from your unemployed nephew. Ask specifically about: • Pension income splitting • Strategic RRSP contributions • Consulting or corporate structures where appropriate • Creative but compliant barter arrangements • CPP and OAS deferral strategies • Documentation. Lots of documentation. When clawbacks are involved, paperwork is your lifeboat. A Short, Honest Take Grocery relief is appreciated. The intent is good. But until Canada fixes a tax system that punishes low-income seniors for working, affordability will remain fragile. This isn’t about blame. It’s about aligning incentives with reality. Right now, it feels like we’re helping seniors swim by handing them bigger life jackets—while quietly drilling holes in the boat. And yes… I need to lie down. I feel another blog coming on. Apparently, exercising this much common sense counts as cardio. Sue Don't Retire...Re-Wire! Want more of this? Subscribe for weekly doses of retirement reality—no golf-cart clichés, no sunset stock photos, just straight talk about staying Hip, Fit & Financially Free.
Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit
Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:
