From the moment I stepped foot on my future college campus on a rainy Saturday in March, I dreamt of my future there. I imagined my large but tight-knit friend group, academic success and a thriving social life. The moment I found out I was accepted remains one of the happiest moments of my life. Every time I was asked about my plans after high school, it was hard not to smile as I shared where I would be attending college.

However, as my late-August move-in date approached, this excitement was replaced by anxiety. How would I make friends? Would I still be a strong student? How will I manage living alone in a new city? The worries were relentless. Older friends and family lovingly encouraged me, “College is the best four years of your life,” they said repeatedly. “You will be fine,” I attempted to reassure myself, “everyone loves college.”

Except not everyone loves college — at least I certainly didn’t. My college experience was incredibly difficult. I struggled socially and with mental health, making it hard for me to make friends and succeed academically. The COVID-19 pandemic struck halfway through my junior year, increasing the sense of isolation I already felt. Though there were glimpses of the perfect college experience society had promised, for me, college was not perfect — it was hard.

Yet when people would ask me how I liked school, “I love it” was always my response, hoping that maybe if I said it enough times, it might magically become true. Admitting that I was unhappy or struggling seemed like the ultimate failure. If “everyone loves college,” what was wrong with me?

What I know now is that nothing was wrong with me, and I was far less alone in my experience than I thought.

The data do not lie: College is hard for most students. Most college students in the United States meet the criteria for a mental health condition, with rates of depression, anxiety and suicidality among college students higher than ever. A Gallup poll in 2023 found that 66% percent of college students reported feeling stressed and 39% reported feeling lonely “during a lot of the day.”

These mental health struggles are compounded by the widespread substance use and abuse present on college campuses.

When we tell students that college will be the best four years of their lives, we ignore all these realities. Teenagers enter college under the pretense that they are kicking off what will be four utopic years. Inevitably, they’re disappointed to realize that what lies ahead of them is simply four years of life. The ups and downs inherent to the human experience don’t pause the moment you step foot in your dorm room (which is not nearly big enough for two people).

It’s only years after graduating that I can see my college experience for exactly what it was: a difficult few years, a place where I met some of my best friends and received an incredible education, and a time fraught with loneliness — all at once. I also know now that my experience was not unique.

Had I known this then, maybe I would have felt more comfortable asking for help or put less pressure on myself to have an idyllic college experience. By attempting to foster excitement among those heading off to college, we’re adding to the pressure cooker in which adolescents already live. It’s time we make space in the conversation for the truth that college is a great time in life — and it’s also a challenging one.

I wish my college self knew that now, at the age of 25, I am the happiest and healthiest I’ve ever been. I wouldn’t change anything about my college experience, but I would tell my younger self (and all soon-to-be college students) that whether you love college or hate it, there is so much more life ahead of you.

Caroline Boucher (carolineboucher9@gmail.com) is a clinical research coordinator in New York City with a B.A. from Georgetown University and a Master of Science in Social Work from Columbia University. 

Americans, whether for or against Israel, face the question: How can you defend such carnage?

You can’t. There’s no good way to defend the killing of innocents, but we should consider the context when condemning Israel.

Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel killed about 1140 Israelis, and Hamas took some 250 hostages back to Gaza.

Oct. 7 has been called Israel’s 9/11, but that grossly understates the scale of the attack.

Israel has roughly 10 million people. The United States, 335,000,000. On 9/11, we lost about 3,000 people. For the United States to suffer a comparable attack to Oct. 7, nearly 40,000 Americans would need to die, with another 8,000 taken hostage.

Imagine if Mexican militants were to pour across our border, murder some 40,000 people and take 8,000 hostages.

How would Americans react to such slaughter? It beggars the imagination. Nothing would be off the table. No number of Mexican dead would be considered excessive. And we wouldn’t care if other countries disagreed.

Look at our past wars.

Death counts vary widely, but during the Vietnam War, we killed tens of thousands of civilians. We dropped 388,000 tons of napalm.

Yet Vietnam neither attacked us nor presented a threat. Our reason was essentially an abstraction — that if North Vietnam won, communism would spread throughout Asia and beyond. In the half-century since our withdrawal, that hasn’t come to pass.

The United States launched two wars after 9/11. We understand the rationale for Afghanistan, however badly the war was managed. We were attacked by al-Qaida, an extremist group based in that country.

Iraq is another story. Twenty years on, we’re still debating why we even went to war. That tells you a lot. It’s clear that much of the rationale for that war rested on falsehoods.

But if the reasons remain murky, the results are not. According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, somewhere between 280,000 and 315,000 civilians “died from direct war-related violence caused by the U.S., its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces.”

Yet neither the Vietnam nor Iraq wars, unlike Israel’s assault in Gaza, were responses to existential threats to the United States. Or any threat beyond the theoretical.

Consider another perspective. Imagine Ukraine murdered thousands of Russian civilians and took hostages. Russia, of course, would respond.

Imagine further Ukraine taking losses on the level of the Palestinians in Gaza. President Vladimir Zelensky, however, refuses to surrender. Let’s add that Zelensky is making these decisions living out of harm’s way, as are current leaders of Hamas.

Could Zelensky count on support from Americans?

Not likely. Zelensky would face enormous international pressure — in the name of humanity — to surrender and return the hostages. There would be little sympathy. The reaction would be, “You poked the bear. You’re on your own.”

Much of the Gaza coverage suggests that Palestinians are powerless to end Israel’s attacks. That’s not quite true. They have the power to surrender. They have the power to return the hostages. They have the power to renounce their stated goal of destroying Israel.

Which leaves Israel in a quandary. How do you make peace with an opponent whose ultimate goal is the elimination of your country and your people? How do you force an opponent to the negotiating table when they count every life and battle lost as another victory?

As a story in The Atlantic on Hamas’ strategy was headlined, “For Hamas, Everything is Going According to Plan.” They figure they’re winning.

Israel and its government are not above criticism. But critics need to consider: In a similar situation, what would the United States do? In far less serious situations, what has the United States done?

Don Flood (don.g.flood@gmail.com) is a retired editor and columnist for the Dover Post and Cape Gazette in Delaware. He lives in Delaware and spent much of his life on the Eastern Shore. 

Only 47% of Black fourth-graders in the state can read at a basic level, and that drops to 36% for Hispanics.

Low literacy skills also contribute to the growing U.S. wealth gap. And it’s a disadvantage for those seeking higher-paying jobs.

The gap is even more pronounced in communities of color, particularly Black households. Black families are twice as likely as whites to have no wealth.

These kinds of disparities are not new to Baltimore City. I see them every day. I work for The Literacy Lab’s Leading Men Fellowship, a program that aims to improve literacy skills in underserved communities and create pathways to careers in education for young men of color.

The work we’re doing in the classroom makes an impactful difference. Just look at the data.

Only 29% of the Maryland pre-K students tutored by The Literacy Lab were reading at grade level at the start of last school year. The number more than doubled to 72% by year’s end.

The Literacy Lab uses evidence-based strategies rooted in the Science of Reading framework to improve student reading skills. A majority of the gains are made by Black and Hispanic students, the demographic most at risk for poor literacy skills.

Improving literacy rates and uplifting families can be achieved by expanding access to culturally responsive literacy instruction, yielding long-term education and career success.

Students perform better academically when they have a teacher who looks like them, particularly Black youths. Black students who had just one Black teacher by third grade were 13% more likely to enroll in college.

Policymakers in Maryland have taken note of the grim reality of what’s to come if they don’t address our state’s reading crisis.

The State Board of Education now mandates all public schools in Maryland use early literacy instruction built around the Science of Reading. They are also establishing partnerships with colleges and universities to improve alignment of teacher preparation and professional development to the Science of Reading.

But more can be done, like placing greater emphasis on hiring teachers of color, particularly Black and Brown men.

The vast majority, 70%, of Maryland’s pre-K-12 teachers are White. Less than 19% of teachers in Maryland are Black, with even fewer Hispanic teachers. We can’t ignore the shortage of diverse teachers in our public schools any longer.

Black and Brown men in the classroom make a profound difference in the lives of students of color. We need to come up with real solutions to diversify our state’s teacher workforce.

Those solutions should include collaborations with community organizations, educators, policymakers, colleges and universities, and other institutions. The racial makeup of classrooms won’t change without a collaborative strategy.

Financial incentives for a career in education also need to be part of the solution. Increasing access to resources such as scholarships to defray, or cover entirely, the cost of a teaching degree is a great place to start.

We need to create more pathways to teaching. They’re a catalyst to changing the racial makeup of our state’s classroom teachers.

Black and Hispanic men also need to step up to help diversify the teacher workforce. But no one can force them to answer the call for more male teachers of color. It’s a personal decision only they can make.

Having a diverse teacher workforce is key to improving the low literacy skills that keep feeding the growing U.S. wealth gap and eliminating barriers to higher-paying jobs. Increasing household wealth in communities of color will remain a fictional story without it.

Evan Singleton (esingleton@theliteracylab.org) is the program manager for The Literacy Lab’s Leading Men Fellowship in Baltimore. Before, he served as the dean of students and athletic director at Baltimore Collegiate School for Boys.

Kennedy’s discussions with the Trump campaign about a position in a potential Trump administration were apparently far more fruitful. In commenting on Kennedy’s endorsement, Trump said he “probably would” consider Kennedy for a role in his administration. Now some might think that Kennedy was shamelessly selling his endorsement to the highest bidder in order to get a significant government position. Or perhaps Kennedy thought that any administration agreeing to hire him is by definition better for the country. Either way, his road to the endorsement raises concerns.

The affection and intellectual closeness between Kennedy and Trump are clear. Upon receiving the endorsement, Trump said. “I like him a lot, I respect him a lot … He’s a great guy, respected by everybody.” Apparently not quite everybody. Certainly not by a man who as recently as May called Kennedy a “liberal lunatic” and the “dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan.” Yes, that man was the aforementioned Donald Trump. Trump deserves credit for likely being at least half right in the first comment about Kennedy above, and this exceeds his normal accuracy rate by about 50%.

So let’s look to what position within Trump’s administration would fit a man of Kennedy’s knowledge and talents. As there is no official cabinet position of Secretary for Conspiracy Theories, the obvious best position for Kennedy would be Secretary of Health and Human Services. In that role he would have a louder voice in the battle against vaccines that have proven effective against COVID-19 and ones that had come close to eradicating measles before some people became scared of taking the vaccines. In 2019, Kennedy traveled to Samoa to share with residents his unscientific and anti-scientific warnings about the dangers of the measles vaccine. Use of the vaccine in Samoa then plummeted, and shortly thereafter 3,000 people contracted measles, and 83 children died during a horrific outbreak which the World Health Organization blamed on the anti-vaccine scare created by Kennedy and others. Perhaps the polio vaccine is next on Kennedy’s hit list. In 2023, Kennedy suggested the polio vaccine likely caused cancer. Now, would he not fit perfectly in the administration of a man who suggested that one possible way to cure COVID is to inject bleach into our bodies?

Kennedy is no mere anti-vax extremist, however. He is worse. Trump is considering for his administration a man who was reported by the New York Post to have said in a dinner meeting that “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese. We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not.” That he had absolutely no support for this outrageous antisemitic, anti-Chinese statement is obvious. Kennedy also has a gift for overstatement, which should fit well with his possible future boss. In 2022, he said Anne Frank, who hid from the Nazis for years before eventually being captured and sent to her death in a concentration camp, had more freedom than people living under vaccine mandates. It is hardly surprising that so many members of Kennedy’s own family opposed his candidacy and the statements he has made. What does it say about Trump that he would consider such a man for a position in his government?

The man who told us that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, the 2020 election was stolen from him, the insurrectionist riot on January 6 was peaceable and that the vice president has the power to overturn an election (it would be interesting to see if Trump believes the current veep can do that) has found his intellectual soulmate in the man who left a dead bear cub in Central Park and sees conspiracies whenever he opens his eyes. A marriage made in heaven.

Steven P. Grossman is the Dean Julius Isaacson Professor Emeritus at the University of Baltimore Law School. His email is: sgrossman@ubalt.edu.

Maryland can and must do better. We have a golden opportunity to establish a comprehensive energy strategy that not only tackles today’s challenges but positions us as a national leader in energy innovation. The key lies in developing an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that guides our state toward a balanced, resilient and clean energy future. The time for decisive leadership is now.

Maryland’s energy sector is at a tipping point. Our reliance on imported electricity is growing, making us vulnerable to supply disruptions and price volatility. Meanwhile, the state’s ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy are being undermined by a failure to plan for future energy needs comprehensively.

The MPRP — a significant transmission project aimed at enhancing grid reliability in the Piedmont region — addresses immediate grid stress but does little to solve the underlying problem of energy supply and diversification. Maryland cannot continue to patch up its energy challenges with piecemeal solutions. We need a strategic, long-term approach that an IRP can provide.

An IRP is not just a technical document; it is a comprehensive strategy that evaluates all available energy resources, forecasts future demand and guides investment decisions that benefit all stakeholders. By adopting an IRP, Maryland can move beyond short-term fixes like MPRP and build a sustainable, diversified energy portfolio that includes advanced nuclear, renewables, natural gas, and cutting-edge storage technologies. Here’s why an IRP is critical for Maryland:

Nuclear power: Maryland’s energy future must include nuclear power as a cornerstone of its clean energy strategy. As a zero-emission baseload power source, nuclear energy provides the consistent, reliable electricity that wind and solar cannot always deliver. Advanced nuclear technologies, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), offer a new, safer, and more flexible approach to nuclear power. SMRs can be rapidly deployed to replace retiring coal and natural gas plants, providing Maryland with a stable energy backbone that supports renewable integration.

Nuclear power is not just about electricity; it’s about reliability, resilience and emissions reduction. Unlike other power sources, nuclear operates continuously, providing a dependable energy supply regardless of weather conditions or time of day. For Maryland, this means enhanced energy security and a significant reduction in carbon emissions — a critical step in meeting our environmental commitments.

Energy diversification: The MPRP focuses narrowly on improving transmission infrastructure, but it fails to address Maryland’s fundamental energy supply issues. An IRP would allow Maryland to strategically invest in a diversified mix of energy sources, including advanced nuclear, offshore wind, solar, and battery storage. This holistic approach not only improves grid reliability but also enhances our resilience against future disruptions.

Diversification is key to breaking free from the cycle of reactive, costly projects like MPRP. By investing in a broader energy portfolio, Maryland can mitigate risks, reduce dependency on imports and create a more adaptable and resilient energy system.

Economic growth and high-quality jobs: A forward-looking IRP will spur economic growth by positioning Maryland as a leader in clean energy technology. Investments in SMRs, renewables and grid modernization can create thousands of well-paying jobs, attract cutting-edge companies and stimulate local economies. By embracing nuclear innovation, Maryland can also tap into federal incentives and funding for advanced energy projects, driving billions of dollars of investment into the state. It makes future opportunities like Quantum Frederick possible with minimal impact to rural Marylanders.

Enhancing grid resilience and modernization: Maryland’s grid must evolve to meet the demands of the 21st century. An IRP would prioritize smart grid technologies, microgrids and large-scale energy storage, enhancing our grid’s ability to handle peak demand, integrate renewables and recover from outages. The result is a more resilient grid that protects Maryland residents, businesses and critical infrastructure from the increasing threats of extreme weather and cyberattacks.

Leading in environmental stewardship: Maryland has set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we cannot achieve them through renewables alone. Nuclear power, with its zero-emission credentials, is a critical piece of the puzzle. By integrating nuclear into our energy mix, Maryland can make significant strides toward its climate goals while maintaining the reliability and stability our economy depends on.

Governor Wes Moore has demonstrated a commitment to bold, transformative leadership across education, economic equity and social justice. Now, Maryland needs that same vision applied to our energy future. By championing an Integrated Resource Plan, Moore can address the systemic issues underlying our state’s energy challenges and pivot from a reactive, symptom-focused approach exemplified by MPRP to a proactive, strategic framework.

This is not just about managing today’s needs — it’s about building a legacy of energy leadership for generations to come. With an IRP, Maryland can establish itself as a model for the nation, showcasing how a diverse, resilient and clean energy system can drive economic growth, enhance environmental protection and ensure energy security.

Maryland has the expertise, resources and drive to lead in the energy sector. Governor Moore, this is your moment to set Maryland on a path toward a sustainable and secure energy future. Let’s move beyond short-term solutions and embrace a comprehensive strategy that positions Maryland at the forefront of America’s clean energy revolution.

The opportunity to lead is here. The time to act is now. Let’s make Maryland a beacon of energy innovation for the rest of the country.

Mark A. Aitken lives on a farm in northern Baltimore County. He is senior vice president of advanced technology at Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose executive chairman is The Baltimore Sun’s principal owner David Smith.

President Joe Biden is a bracing example. As a U.S. senator seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2007, Biden screamed that he would lead the charge to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without a constitutionally required declaration of war. But as vice president, Biden declined to protest President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional attack on Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, creating a wilderness in the country featuring industrial-scale murders, rape, destruction, human trafficking, slavery and refugees fleeing and dying in the Mediterranean Sea to escape Obama’s dystopia. And President Biden has repeatedly vowed to attack Russia if it invades a NATO member and China if it invades Taiwan, without constitutionally required congressional declarations of war. And Biden has continued to fight unconstitutional wars in Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen and as co-belligerents with Ukraine and Israel through the systematic supply of weapons without required congressional declarations.

The Harris-Walz ticket promises the same unconstitutional presidential wars. Here’s the litmus test. Ask Democratic presidential nominee Harris if she would go to war against Russia if President Vladimir Putin invaded a NATO member, for example, Finland, Latvia or Poland, without a congressional declaration of war. Harris would never say, “No.” That constitutionally correct answer would awaken the wrath of the multitrillion-dollar military-industrial-security complex, which has dictated the national security policies of the United States since at least the Korean War if not earlier. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the same as long ago as 1961. Harris would be just as unlikely to say no to war with China over Taiwan irrespective of a congressional declaration.

By osmosis, Harris-Walz have absorbed the commandments of the American Empire, which displaced the Republic more than a century ago. Our Empire is fueled by the magnification of fleas into elephants and the shrinkage of elephants into fleas. Commandment 1: the United States is uniquely indispensable to peace and prosperity in the world because we are God’s new chosen people. Commandment 2: Preemptive wars to destroy pre-embryonic imaginary threats are mandatory because the first step toward a mushroom cloud over New York City or Washington, D.C., is a foreigner who has learned quantum mechanics. Better that tens of millions of innocent foreigners die than that one evil foreigner eludes extermination. Commandment 3: An eye for 10 million eyes. A tooth for 100 million teeth.

As the saying goes in politics, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

The Constitution’s authors were unanimous: the president would be an untrustworthy steward of the war power. The temptation to fabricate excuses for war to aggrandize power would be too great for the commander in chief. James Madison, father of the Constitution, explained that presidents would be drawn to war for fame, glory, secrecy and salutes. The appalling evils of war — the crucifixion of liberty on a national security cross, the legalization of first-degree murder on an industrial scale, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the squandering of trillions of dollars better spent on hospitals, roads, airports, schools, bridges, mass transit or other infrastructure, would be readily indulged by presidents as the price of an American Empire bestriding the world like a colossus.

Congress, in contrast with the president, has no incentive to invoke the war power except in response to actual or imminent foreign aggression. In times of war, Congress shrinks to an ink blot except for the power to suspend the great writ of habeas corpus. No war monument or statue has ever been constructed to heroize a member of Congress who voted for war. Accordingly, Congress has declared war in only five conflicts over 235 years and only in response to an actual or perceived attack, whereas presidents have unilaterally deployed the military offensively on scores of occasions, including Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Kuwait, Serbia, Iraq, Syria and Libya.

In November, the American people will have a choice between Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance. But they will not have a choice between an Empire and a Republic. The Empire is here to stay until self-ruination arrives like the scores of its predecessors.

Bruce Fein (X: @brucefeinesq; www.lawofficesofbrucefein.com) was associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and is author of “American Empire Before the Fall.”

In Maryland, we announced this week that we are embarking on the next steps to streamline our tax system and reduce the work, the cost and the confusion of tax filing by offering a free and easier process for many Marylanders for both federal and state tax returns.

For the 2025 tax filing season, our state will join a dozen others in partnering with the Internal Revenue Service to offer Direct File, a free, online platform designed to make tax return filing more convenient, secure and accessible for taxpayers. This program, created by the Biden-Harris Administration and members of Maryland’s congressional delegation through the Inflation Reduction Act and implemented through a partnership with Maryland’s Office of the Comptroller, will modernize the tax return-filing experience and save taxpayers time and money.

Starting in 2025, Marylanders will be able to take advantage of this service for both their state and federal taxes. The Office of the Comptroller is working with a nonprofit, Code for America, to build a platform that will securely transfer information from a federal tax return to a state tax return. This service will provide Marylanders with a straightforward path for their tax returns that saves time on paperwork and reduces wait times for a refund, saves money on out-of-pocket tax preparation costs and safeguards personal information that could be at risk when filing a paper return.

Direct File offers a more efficient and convenient way for taxpayers to file their returns — reducing an administrative burden that most Americans would rather avoid. We know that an overwhelming majority of tax returns are filed electronically. During the 2022 federal fiscal year, 2.9 million of the more than 3.1 million individual filings in Maryland, or 92%, were submitted to the Office of the Comptroller electronically.

With access to Direct File, eligible Maryland taxpayers will have access to a free and easily accessible online platform where they can submit their returns. In the national program’s pilot testing phase earlier this year, 140,000 filers across 12 states saved an estimated $5.6 million in filing costs and claimed over $90 million in refunds. It is clear these commonsense changes will save Americans time and money and create a fairer tax-filing process.

The positive impacts don’t stop there. The trial showed that direct electronic filing will allow the IRS and Maryland Comptroller’s Office to process returns quickly and to deliver refunds directly to taxpayers’ bank accounts without the risk of those funds being lost, misdelivered or stolen. In the age of data breaches and scammers active on the dark web, Americans need to keep a close eye on their credit reports and be discerning about where and how they share their personal information. Direct File provides a more secure method of sharing personal identifying information and financial details and supports the work of the Office of the Comptroller to modernize our tax system and better serve Marylanders. With the new filing process, Marylanders will have one fewer place to share information and can be confident in the security protections in place to store that information.

Finally, Direct File will seek to provide robust support to filers without paying a premium. Direct File and its complement in Maryland are designed to be user-friendly, asking a series of questions to determine eligibility. It will guide users through the free filing process with clear instructions, tutorials and a live chat feature connecting directly with a person who can answer questions at no cost. At a time when Americans grapple daily with the cost of essentials for their families, offering a free alternative to expensive software and middlemen makes sense and can better serve taxpayers in identifying eligibility for possible tax deductions and credits. This important step advances our shared goal of creating a more equitable tax system and allows Marylanders to save money.

In 2025, Direct File will be available to certain taxpayers with relatively straightforward tax returns — but we all hope to see it expanded so that every American can benefit from it. The continued success of Direct File as it becomes a permanent option is dependent on adequate funding for the IRS from Congress. Unfortunately, the program’s success and the IRS are under attack by Republicans in Congress. For the good of American taxpayers, we will continue to push back against those attempts.

Together — as members of the Maryland federal delegation and as the state comptroller — we are committed to simplifying the tax filing process and creating a simpler and more secure tax experience for all Americans. We encourage Marylanders to try something new by visiting directfile.irs.gov and trying out Maryland’s new personal online filing site when it launches in 2025.

Brooke E. Lierman (brooke@marylandtaxes.gov) is the 34th comptroller of Maryland. Chris Van Hollen is a U.S. senator for Maryland and chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Steny Hoyer represents Maryland’s 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives and serves as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

So, how does PDAB implementation harm local pharmacies and patients?

PDABs aim to cap drug prices for certain medicines to improve patient affordability. The price ceiling set by PDABs means pharmacies must purchase drugs at the wholesale acquisition cost (set by manufacturers) and then sell them at a lower price dictated by the board. This forces pharmacies to buy high and sell low, with the hope of eventually recouping the price differential from an uncertain source, perhaps the manufacturer, at an undetermined time. It is important to note that states lack the authority to compel manufacturers to create new pricing mechanisms.

This new purchasing and selling dynamic is devastating for community pharmacies, which often lack the financial resources to cover expenses while waiting for reimbursement. According to the National Community Pharmacists Association, 328 independent community pharmacies in Maryland generate over $900 million annually in economic activity. However, a recent survey from NCPA found that nearly a third of independent pharmacy owners may close their stores this year. Implementation of price-setting boards will place financial pressure on these pharmacies, which may accelerate closures, resulting in a meaningful reduction in the state’s economic benefits each year.

The consequences can be particularly devastating in rural areas. The Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis found in a report that since 2003, more than 1,230 rural pharmacies have closed.

In contrast, PBM-owned pharmacies like CVS, backed by Fortune 10 companies, can weather the financial discrepancies. This disparity will likely drive community pharmacies out of business, further consolidating the market power of PBM-owned pharmacies. Furthermore, as the Federal Trade Commission found, “PBMs hold substantial influence over independent pharmacies by imposing unfair, arbitrary, and harmful contractual terms that can impact independent pharmacies’ ability to stay in business and serve their communities.”

In essence, well-meaning but misguided policymakers eager to score political points may assist PBMs in driving independent pharmacies out of the market, thereby further increasing the dominance of PBM-owned entities. This outcome is economically detrimental, fostering monopolies that drive up costs and harm patients who rely on the personalized care provided by community pharmacies that PBM-owned pharmacies often fail to deliver.

Is this the outcome Maryland policymakers wanted when they passed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Board?

Politicians promoting this policy overlook a simple yet effective solution: ensuring that any savings or discounts negotiated by PBMs are directly applied to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for patients when they pick up their medications at the pharmacy. Instead, an additional layer of bureaucratic oversight is spending crucial state resources on an incredibly complex process.  Just recently the Maryland board’s Chair Van T. Mitchell said, “We’ve been at this now for four years … I think it’s important for us to find a timeline and know exactly whether we’re going to hit them or not.”

Moreover, using PDABs sidesteps the fundamental issues rooted in PBM practices. It’s no secret that PBMs employ tactics like rebate contracting, charging opaque fees based on retail prices and creating offshore entities to aggregate concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers. These practices result in nearly 50 cents of every dollar spent on brand-name medicines in the U.S. ending up as profit for PBMs. These profits add zero value to patient care or the development of life-saving cures.

Unfortunately, this isn’t limited to just Maryland. PDABs are being formed around the country and threaten both independent pharmacies and patients.

Ultimately, instead of standing with patients and small business owners, Maryland policymakers are siding with powerful business entities and perpetuating a system that disadvantages those who need affordable and accessible healthcare the most. Maryland policymakers should instead focus on patient-centered solutions that benefit the most vulnerable patients, not policies that benefit insurance middlemen.

Robert Popovian is a senior visiting health policy fellow at the Pioneer Institute.

Following the bridge’s collapse in late March, the Port of Baltimore, and its critical role in industry, was catapulted to the forefront of public discussion. Over the past several years, the port has solidified itself as one of the largest port facilities in the country, handling specialized cargo like automobiles, and most notably, coal exports from its Curtis Bay Piers facility.

Curtis Bay Piers is the second-largest coal terminal in the United States. Yet, despite the economic vitality that Curtis Bay Piers brings to Maryland, there have been some community calls to cease coal export operations at the port. From a public policy and economic development perspective, we must consider the critical investment private industry continues to make in Baltimore. Industry activity at Curtis Bay Piers and the rest of the port brings millions of dollars into Maryland’s public coffers. The Port of Baltimore and the CSX Curtis Bay Piers are too important to Maryland’s economic and community growth.

The port generates nearly $3.3 billion in total personal income, $395 million in tax revenue, and supports 139,180 jobs connected to port work, according to state data. Baltimore has been home to the coal terminal for more than a century. With Curtis Bay Piers at the heart of its Maryland operations, railroad company CSX has invested $60 million in its operations and employs almost 700 Marylanders.

If the piers were ever to be forced to close, hundreds if not thousands of workers, including some of our neighbors, would be affected. Marylanders cannot afford to lose a steady, livable wage — especially today when inflation is eating away at household incomes and the bridge collapse has already impacted many industries all along the Eastern Seaboard.

Jobs aside, the Curtis Bay terminal brings undeniable economic value to Maryland and commodity value globally. The coal from Curtis Bay is internationally important as it is an alternative for countries such as India and those outside of Europe who currently rely on Russian energy supplies.

Maryland Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Mary Kane in an opinion piece in The Baltimore Sun this year said, “CSX’s Curtis Bay terminal generated over $335 million in total economic value for our state … providing the port with access to $20 million annually in federal dredging dollars” that are critical to solidifying the Port of Baltimore’s access to global markets — beyond coal exports. Kane also noted the port’s vitality is crucial for “industries like CSX that contribute billions annually to Maryland’s economy.”

The calls for closure have come from a handful of “citizen scientists” claiming the air pollution is overburdening the community due to the piers’ operations. In actuality, the area is in compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particle pollution. CSX has even gone as far as installing a fenceline monitoring program that goes beyond requirements enforced in their permit from Maryland Department of the Environment.

While we can appreciate active community engagement — and health and air quality should always be assessed — it is unfair and simply unreasonable to even consider closing an industry that provides thousands of jobs across the state and would strip millions of dollars connected to and from those jobs that help stabilize and grow Maryland’s economy.

The Port of Baltimore has been an important access point for 300 years. We must ensure it remains a vital and industrial port for the next 300 years.

David Byrd is a former deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development and Research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and served as chief of staff to former Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. 

Much has been written about the various stresses our high school students face, and the college admissions process is certainly one. As the nation’s top-ranked colleges continue to position themselves more as luxury brands through ever-dwindling acceptance rates, I’m concerned that far too many students and families are losing sight of the purpose of college and falling into a trap of believing that life-long success can only be obtained if one possesses a degree from a prestigious university. Having helped hundreds of students gain acceptance to colleges across the country and watched them navigate their college experiences, I’m convinced that how one takes advantage of the resources and opportunities at college is far more important than where one attends college.

The current fixation on obtaining acceptances to the most elite colleges is resulting in an approach to high school that focuses on chasing perfection — maximizing grades, paying high prices to standardized test prep services to maximize test scores and checking the box on enough extracurricular activities to meet college admissions standards. Too frequently this focus comes at the cost of developing softer skills that will ensure a student is equipped to truly take advantage of the college experience and ensure life-long well-being.

With another school year upon us, I’d encourage our teenagers and their parents to rethink their approach to the high school experience. Instead of a place to chase after perfection, think of high school as a training ground to develop skills paramount to college and life success. Strong grades, high test scores and an array of extracurricular activities are all great, but developing relationships with classmates and faculty members, proactively pursuing healthy risks, communicating effectively and enhancing storytelling skills, developing a physical fitness routine and finding a balanced approach to technology will ensure our students are positioned to get into great colleges but also to embrace the amazing opportunities on campus once there.

Capable and resilient students benefit greatly from engaging in activities that push their boundaries and offer no guarantees of success, such as trying out for sports teams, pursuing leadership roles, or running for student government. High school provides a great environment for leaning into these experiences. I’d encourage parents to support their teen’s ambitions by responding positively to their ideas and encouraging them to take these healthy risks. Failure, an inevitable part of this process, teaches valuable lessons about resilience and strengthens character.

We continue to hear from employers and executives who express the value in employees being able to articulate ideas and stories both verbally and in writing. Unfortunately, this skill set is severely lacking in most of our teenage students. One key reason is that students are not reading enough, which hampers their ability to articulate ideas and tell compelling stories. Given the responsibilities and challenges high schoolers face, it’s understandable that reading often falls by the wayside. But I’d urge parents to encourage a daily reading habit, especially starting in middle school, to enhance student communication and storytelling skills.

Developing a physical activity routine is crucial for teenage students, as it plays a significant role in fostering resilience and reducing stress. The most successful juniors and seniors often engage in regular physical activities, whether it’s participating in sports teams, daily walks, yoga or weight training at the gym. Encouraging our teenagers to adopt a physical fitness routine can enhance their academic performance and improve their mindset, aiding in relationship-building and overall success.

Finally, finding a healthy balance with technology is crucial for long-term success and well-being. While technology is an integral part of modern life and essential for future careers, it too frequently interferes with important activities such as building relationships, engaging in community activities, and maintaining academic performance. Successful students we work with have learned to manage their technology use effectively. Establishing daily routines, such as designated hours for phone use, can help students create a balanced approach. Additionally, creating tech-free zones for studying and reading can foster a focused and interruption-free environment.

Our teens face plenty of challenges, let’s not add the pursuit of perfection in the college admissions process to the list of anxiety-inducing expectations placed upon them. In this new school year, let’s think of high school as a place for experimenting, building enriching relationships and routines and pursuing healthy risks. Our students, and the future of our collective communities, will be better for it.

Kenny Sholes (foundryadmissions@gmail.com) is the creator of Foundry Admissions Strategies, a college admissions consulting company.