The Next Frontier in School Choice
Four stories on reform that works—and reform that doesn’t
If we want better outcomes, we need to be willing to rethink the systems producing them. This month’s newsletter brings together four perspectives on where reform is overdue, and what it would take to deliver real results in health care, education, fiscal policy, and recovery.
Congress should move legislation on Most Favored Nation drug pricing
A closer look at how tying U.S. drug prices to those abroad could lower costs if done without undermining the innovation pipeline.
Why it matters: Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs than patients in other developed countries. Policymakers face a real tradeoff: lowering prices today without undermining the innovation that produces tomorrow’s cures.
What we found: A Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) approach—tying U.S. drug prices to those paid abroad—can reduce costs, but poorly designed policies risk importing foreign price controls and dampening pharmaceutical innovation.
The policy points:
The U.S. subsidizes a disproportionate share of global drug innovation.
Foreign governments often set prices administratively, not through markets.
MFN policies can reduce revenues needed for research and development.
Smarter design can capture savings while limiting long-term harm.
What policymakers should do: Any approach to lowering drug prices must be paired with policies that preserve incentives for innovation, including encouraging competition and accelerating the entry of generics and biosimilars. The goal should be to strike a sustainable balance, delivering meaningful cost relief to patients today without undermining future development.
Full-spectrum Education Choice
School choice is moving from selecting schools to designing an education.
Why it matters: Traditional school choice debates focus on where students go to school, but families increasingly need flexibility in how education is delivered, especially as learning models evolve.
What we found: The next phase of education reform isn’t just school choice, it’s “full-spectrum” choice: allowing families to customize education through a mix of providers, services, and learning environments.
The policy points:
Education is becoming “unbundled” (courses, tutoring, virtual, hybrid, etc.).
Funding systems remain tied to rigid, institution-based models.
Parents lack the flexibility to direct resources across multiple options.
Innovation is outpacing policy frameworks.
What policymakers should do: Policymakers should modernize education funding to reflect how families actually use education today. That means expanding flexible models like Education Savings Accounts and allowing public funds to follow students across multiple providers, not just a single school. At the same time, accountability systems should shift away from rigid inputs like seat time and toward real student outcomes, while reducing regulatory barriers that prevent new and innovative education models from emerging.
“Total Boomer Luxury Communism”
Federal policy is increasingly protecting affluent retirees while shifting the costs onto younger generations.
Why it matters: Federal spending is increasingly skewed toward older, wealthier Americans, raising serious questions about intergenerational fairness and long-term fiscal sustainability.
What we found: Current policy effectively protects and expands benefits for retirees, many of whom are relatively affluent, while shifting the financial burden onto younger generations through debt and limited opportunity.
The policy points:
Entitlement spending is the primary driver of long-term debt.
Benefits are often not well-targeted by need.
Younger Americans face higher costs (housing, education) with fewer offsets.
The system redistributes upward across generations.
What policymakers should do: Policymakers should confront the structural imbalance in federal spending by reforming entitlement programs to better target those most in need, while gradually adjusting benefits and eligibility to reflect longer life expectancies and fiscal realities. At the same time, they should take steps to slow the growth of long-term debt and rebalance national priorities toward policies that expand opportunity for younger generations, rather than continuing to concentrate resources among those already well-positioned.
Katherine’s path out of addiction
A powerful reminder that recovery is possible, but only when systems support the complex, long-term reality of overcoming addiction.
Why it matters: The addiction crisis continues to devastate individuals, families, and communities. Effective policy must be grounded in what actually helps people recover, not just what sounds good on paper.
What we found: Recovery is possible, but it is often nonlinear and deeply personal. Systems that emphasize flexibility, accountability, and long-term support are more effective than one-size-fits-all approaches.
The policy points:
Recovery paths vary: No single model works for everyone.
Stable housing, employment, and community support are crucial.
Policy often prioritizes short-term intervention over long-term recovery.
Lived experience highlights gaps in current systems.
What policymakers should do: A more effective approach to addiction and recovery starts with recognizing that there is no single path to success. Expanding access to a wide range of treatment and recovery options is essential, alongside sustained investment in the supports that make recovery durable: stable housing, meaningful employment, and strong community networks. Just as important, systems should be shaped by the lived experiences of those who have navigated recovery themselves, ensuring that policy reflects what works in practice, not just in theory.
Thanks for keeping up with FREOPP, and have a great week!
FREOPP’s work is made possible by people like you, who share our belief that equal opportunity is central to the American Dream. Please join them by making a donation today.