A Best Case Bankruptcy Add-on Tool

Credit Report Import

Save time and money by downloading reports
Reduce the time of preparing bankruptcy cases by downloding electronic credit reports directly into Best Case from your choice of three business partners.
Cut case preparation time with credit report import
The Best Case Credit Report Import feature provides an easier, more convenient and faster way to enter claims to the creditor schedules without ever leaving Best Case. All electronic credit reports contain creditor names, addresses, account numbers and more. When you use the Credit Report Import feature you will:

ave Time S

and Money Order electronic credit reports and transfer data directly into applicable schedules in seconds. Cut preparation time down to a minimum and streamline the creditor entry process. No more manual entry and the errors that go along with keying in the information. Now you can rest assured the data entered is accurate. and Filter Data Speed up preparation with a variety of options: use a check box to omit claims that have been paid or have a $0.00 balance, easily assign creditors to schedules and set your preference to import the Bankruptcy Specific Address (BSA) and/or Credit Reporting Address (CRA). Eliminate the chance of forgotten liabilities showing up at a later date by ordering 3-bureau credit reports.
Credit Report import saves a lot of time in data entry and reduces the chance for a client to overlook a creditor. Hunter Reece, Barce & Reece PC Fowler, IN

ncrease Accuracy I

ontrol C

rotect Your Clients P

I can import 40 creditors in seconds with Credit Report Import. No one can type that fast. William Anderson, Anderson Converse & Fennick, York, PA
Connecting you with due diligence solutions
We have partnered with three companies to offer you reliable credit reports and a variety of due diligence products and services. Get tax transcripts, automobile valuations, property appraisals, credit counseling and debtor education services and more. Set up an account with one or all three credit report providers and begin satisfying the BAPCPA fact-checking requirements quickly and easily. Choose from:

A Suite Solution:

877.311.1234 www.asuitesolution.com IN Legal Data Services: 866.218.1003 www.cinlegal.com C oreLogic Credco: 877.213.6520 www.corelogiclegal.com/software C
Importing creditors directly into Best Case is awesome and efficient.
Karen Payne, Joseph L. Payne PC

Austin, IN

For more information visit www.bestcase.com/creditreport or call 1.800.492.8037
Order and import credit reports into Best Case
After setting up an account with a credit report provider, you are ready to start downloading credit reports into Best Case. Open a client file, navigate to the Tools Menu in the top menu bar, then click Credit Report.
Order a single or joint credit report
Download the credit report
Select an individual or a joint report, then click Next. Choose Order Reports Now and answer a few quick questions to confirm the debtors identity.
Click Download Reports. After downloading, view a PDF of the report by clicking View Report.
Import the report into Best Case
Assign to Schedules D, E, F, or G
Click Import Reports to Best Case to process the credit report request.
Assign each claim to a Schedule with easy-to-use buttons. Enhanced flexibility allows you to choose to import the BSA and/or the CRA. Click Import to Client to complete the task.
Get Started with Credit Report Import Today!
Set up an account with one or all three of our credit report partners: A Suite Solution877.311.1234 www.asuitesolution.com CIN Legal Data Services 866.218.1003 www.cinlegal.com CoreLogic Credco877.213.6520 www.corelogiclegal.com/software

CR20_2P_0311

Wolters Kluwer Law & Business connects legal and business communities with timely, specialized expertise and information-enabled solutions to support productivity, accuracy and mobility. Serving customers worldwide, our products include those under the Aspen, Best Case, CCH, ftwilliam, Kluwer Law International, Loislaw, MediRegs, and TAGData names.

TABLE 4. Average

Annual Patent and Licensing Activity, 2002-2006
Invention Disclosures Patent Grants 123 Licenses/Options 134 Licensing Revenue (in millions) $39 $172 $28 $19 $59 $10 $13 Revenues per Expenditures 2.9% 8.5% 1.6% 1.6% 5.1% 0.8% 1.0%
Michigans URC Northern California Southern California Illinois Massachusetts North Carolina Pennsylvania
Source: Universities websites, Association of University Technology Managers 2005 Survey
BENEFITS OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
The URC sponsors the only medical schools in the state of Michigan that provide Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degrees. In 2005, the URC graduated 639 students from its allopathic (M.D.) and osteopathic (D.O.) medical schools. This is 12.1% more than in 2001. Many of these graduates
remain in Michigan for their residency and internship programs (i.e. graduate medical education or GME). In 2005, 60% of URC medical school graduates remained in Michigan for their graduate medical education. Hospitals that teach these students receive payments for GME. In 2005, hospitals that trained medical residents through a program affiliated with a URC medical school received $526.7 million in GME payments (72% of all state GME payments). Hospitals that had at least one medical residents that had graduated from a URC medical school received $569.4 million or 78% of all state GME payments in 2005. Doctors who attended medical school or a residency program in Michigan are more likely to remain in the state to practice than active physicians in the average U.S. state. Over-half (55.1%) of active physicians in Michigan completed a residency program in Michigan, compared to the national average of 44.7%. The same trend holds for medical schools: 38.2% of active physicians in Michigan in 2005 had attended a medical school in Michigan compared to 29.6% in the average U.S. state.
CULTURE, EVENTS & COMMUNITY
The URC provides numerous cultural and entertainment venues that enrich Michigans residents and draw visitors from across the country and around the world. These attractions include museums of art and history, library collections, theatre, and music. Athletic events are another significant entertainment offering. The most significant athletic event, in terms of attendance, is likely Big Ten football in the URC. In 2006 the University of Michigan drew 770,183 fans to Michigan Stadium for home games and Michigan State drew 495,731 fans to Spartan Stadium. We estimate that the out-of-state visitors for these games was 132,433. We estimate that the economic impact of spending by these out-of-state visitors alone at Big Ten football games played in Michigan was $108.3 million for the 14 games played in 2006. Of course, spending by state residents related to these events was much higher. See Culture, Events, and Community on page 52 for our full analysis.

FIGURE 2.

Origin of URC Graduate Students, Fall 2005

FIGURE 3.

Origin of URC Undergraduate Students, Fall 2005
COMPARISON WITH OTHER UNIVERSITY CLUSTERS
We compared the URCs enrollment and degrees granted with other peer university clusters in five states: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. We present the list of peer university clusters in Table 5 on page 1. The URCs 133,331 students make it the largest research university cluster, in terms of enrollment, of those in our analysis. The next highest is the Southern California cluster (UCLA, UC San Diego, USC), with just over 93,000 students enrolled in fall 2005. As shown in Figure 4, the URC awarded more bachelors degrees (18,731) than any of the comparison clusters, and were second only to the Illinois cluster in terms of advanced degrees awarded (11,606 versus 11,873).

FIGURE 4.

Completions by Type of Degree, 2004-05 academic year
Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Enrollment Analysis: Anderson Economic Group, LLC
Total enrollment (undergraduate and graduate) at these university clusters has grown slightly in the past four years. The average annual growth rate for the URC was just under 1% during the 4-year period, and most of our comparison university clusters experienced annual growth that was similar to the URC. However, the North Carolina university cluster (Duke, UNC, NC State) experienced average annual growth in graduate students well above the other clusters at 3.77%. See Table A-1, Total Enrollment, Fall 2001- 2005, on page A-1 for the enrollment growth rates by university cluster. The URC ranks first among the university clusters in our study for total number of degrees (undergraduate and graduate) conferred in Physical Science, Agriculture and Natural Resources, as well as in Medicine and Biological Science. The URC is in the top three in number of Engineering and Math and Computer Science and
Business Management and Law degrees awarded.1 While the URC confers more degrees in medicine, the physical sciences, and business than most of our comparison university clusters, this is partially a result of the URC teaching thousands more students each year overall than these comparison schools. To put the number of degrees awarded into context, Figure 5, Undergraduate Degrees Conferred by Area, 2004-2005, and Figure 6, Graduate Degrees Conferred by Area, 2004-2005, illustrate the concentration of type of degree conferred, as measured by the total numbers of degrees awarded during the 2004-05 academic year. As shown in Figure 5, after accounting for total number of undergraduate degrees conferred, the URC ranks #5 in Physical Science, Agriculture, and Natural Resources degrees conferred, #2 in Business Management and Law, #7 in Engineering, Math, Computer Science, and #3 in Medicine and Biological Science. The North Carolina university clusters ranks first in medical and physical science undergraduate degree share, while Massachusetts is the most concentrated in granting engineering degrees.

Impact on Jobs and Income
III. Impact on Jobs and Income
SCALE OF OPERATIONS & EXPENDITURES
The University Research Corridor makes significant contributions to the states economy. URC institutions spent $6.5 billion on operations in FY 2006 (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) and employed 46,398 full-time-equivalent faculty and staff throughout Michigan.2 Most operational spending went toward instruction (21% of total), research (14%), and the University of Michigan Hospital (29%). See Table 7 below.

TABLE 7. Operational

Expenditures by the URC, FY 2006
Expenditures ($ in millions) % of Total 21% 14% 5% 5% 4% 4% 7% 6% 6% 29% 100%

Instruction Research

1,397 1,844 $6,452
Public Services Academic Support Student Services and Scholarships and Fellowships Institutional Support Operation and Maintenance of Plants Auxiliary Enterprises Depreciation and Other Expenses University of Michigan Hospital Total Operational Expenditures Data Source: IPEDS Finance FY 2006
a. The data reported to IPEDS for research expenditures is lower than the research expenditures reported to the National Science Foundation. Research expenditures reported to IPEDS only include direct research costs. Indirect costs, while included in NSF reporting, are counted in other spending categories when reported to IPEDS.
We can also examine these expenditures by function, as shown in Figure 7 on page 12. Almost half (47%) of all operational expenditures were for salaries and wages for faculty and staff. Fringe benefits made up 14% of expenditures, while depreciation accounted for 6%. The remaining 33% paid for supplies, equipment, and any other expenditure not included in the previous categories.
2. Faculty and staff count is full-time-equivalent positions in fall 2005. Figure includes the University of Michigan Hospital doctors and staff.

FIGURE 7.

URC Operational Expenditures by Function, FY 2006
Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Finance Analysis: Anderson Economic Group, LLC
URC expenditures encourage even more economic activity throughout the state of Michigan than indicated by total spending listed in Table 7. The dollars the URC spends on supplies, equipment, and staff and faculty salaries are then re-spent as businesses and households throughout Michigan purchase other goods and services.

Property Tax. We estimate the proportion of expenditures that goes toward property taxes on average using the 2005 Consumer Expenditure Survey. We find that, on average, people in the middle 20% of income spend 2.8% of their income on property taxes. We multiply 2.8% by the proportion state property taxes to all state and local property taxes (16.7%) to arrive at an effective rate on income of 0.47%.13 We also find that 2.3% of the additional income earned by earners in the second highest quintile goes toward property taxes. Again multiplying by 16.7% of taxes going to the state government, we estimate the effective property tax rate on marginal income to be 0.38%. Transportation Taxes. We estimate the proportion of expenditures that goes toward
gasoline using the Consumer Expenditure Survey. We find that, on average, people in the middle 20% of income spend 4.7% of their income on gasoline. We multiply this rate by 6.3%, the effective rate of the gasoline tax,14 resulting in an effective rate on income of 0.30%. We also find that 2.1% of the additional income earned by earners in the second highest quintile goes toward fuel. Again multiplying by the 6.3% effective gas tax rate, we estimate the effective gas tax rate on marginal income to be 0.13%.
12.We identified 15 such spending categories, including travel; alcoholic beverages; housing maintenance; repairs, and other household expenses; postage and stationery; clothing; vehicles and vehicle maintenance; entertainment; personal care products, and others. Although we are aware that some expenditures currently are subject to the states sales and use tax, but are not reported, we did not account for evasion or avoidance in this analysis. 13.*See 2004 U.S. Census of Governments State and Local Finance data. 14.Gasoline is not taxed as a percentage of its price, but rather at a per-unit rate of $0.15 per gallon. The gasoline tax of $0.19 per gallon is divided by $3 per gallon of gasoline to yield a 6.3% effective rate.
TOTAL ADDITIONAL STATE TAX REVENUES
We find over $1.15 billion in income categorized as marginal, and $5.1 billion in average income ($2.89 billion from URC alumni and $2.25 billion in net income from URC employees). We calculate the additional taxes to the State of Michigan due to the URC universities by multiplying this income by the effective tax rates identified in the preceding section. Table 16 below shows the results of this analysis: $351.6 million in additional tax revenue to the state of Michigan paid by URC graduates in 2006.

TABLE 16. Additional

accounted for approximately 1.5% of patenting by U.S. private and nonprofit (nongovernmental) sectors in 1981. By 2003, they accounted for almost 4.5%.18 Patents can translate into large sources of revenue. According to data from the NSF, academic patents generated net royalties of $866 million in 2003, a more than four-fold increase from the $195 million net royalties generated in 1993.19 Table 21 and Table 22 on page 34 show the technology transfer activity of the universities in the URC for 2005 and 2002, respectively. The number of invention disclosures, licenses/options granted, and number of start-ups increased for all the universities from 2002 to 2005. The number of patents granted remained stable or increased for each of the universities, and it is possible that the 2005 grants would have been even greater if it were not for the increased amount of time it takes for patents to be granted due to a backlog of patent applications.The amount of revenue decreased between 2002 and 2005. However, revenue from technology transfer is often erratic due to a large sale of a technology in a given year.

TABLE 21. Technology

Transfer Activity, FY 2005
Invention Disclosures Licenses/ Options Patents Granted Number of Start-ups Revenue (in millions) $9.7 $16.7 $3.3 $29.7
Michigan State University of Michigan Wayne State URC TOTAL Source: University Research Corridor

57 468

Analysis: Anderson Economic Group, LLC

TABLE 22. Technology

Transfer Activity, FY 2002
Invention Disclosures Licenses/ Options Patents Granted Number of Start-ups Revenue (in millions) $30.0 $5.7 $1.9 $37.6
Michigan State University of Michigan Wayne State URC TOTAL

49 368

Source: University Research Corridor Analysis: Anderson Economic Group, LLC
Each of the three URC universities has played a significant role in the research and development activities that occur within the state. This occurs through close relationships with research parks around the state, partnerships with Michigan businesses, licensing of patents, and assistance with start-ups.
18. U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Colleges and Universities, Utility Patent Grants 1969-2003. 19. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.

Wayne State University, for example, co-founded TechTown, a 47-acre, multimillion dollar research and business technology park. TechTown is a community of entrepreneurs, investors, and corporate partners that empowers entrepreneurs to build successful technology businesses. The projects goal is to attract mature and incubator-stage companies involved in life sciences, advanced engineering, advanced manufacturing industries, and information technology. Among its 24 current tenants is Asterand, a tissue bank that serves genomic researchers around the world. At capacity, approximately 60 companies and over 1,600 employees are expected to locate at TechTown. Michigan State University hosts the MSU Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR). The centers mission is to be a catalyst for the creation of a profitable future for businesses and industries engaged in Michigans agricultural, food, and natural resource systems. Founded in 2003 with funds from the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and MSU Extension, the Product Center for ANR links clients with experts who can help with business planning, product testing, and market analysis. Since the center has opened, it has helped almost 500 individuals with product ideas, 178 with developing business plans, and has assisted with the launch of 50 ventures. The value of these businesses annual sales is estimated at $41 million. The number of jobs created by these ventures is 310, and annual payroll is $33 million.20 The University of Michigan pledged $1 million over a five year period from 2005 to 2010 to support SPARK, an economic development and marketing organization for the Ann Arbor area. SPARK offers services including business acceleration, business outreach, talent development, early-stage funding, and regional marketing and events. SPARK is aimed at high-tech companies and has the goal of doubling the number of technology companies and tripling the number of tech jobs by 2010.21 An example of U-M and SPARK working collaboratively towards economic development is their response to Pfizer Incorporateds announcement in January 2007 of its plans to close its Ann Arbor operations, which employed over 2,000 workers at the time of the announced closing. SPARK and U-M quickly devised plans to help retain talented Pfizer workers in the region. U-M set up a $3 million fund to help Pfizer researchers transition into research roles at U-M. U-M and SPARK invested jointly in turning Pfizer lab space into a high tech wet lab incubator for several life science start-up companies.22

TABLE 26. Share

of Total R&D Expenditures by Science and Engineering Fields, 2004
Life Sciencesb 63% 65% 48% 51% 52% 73% 48% 60% Math & Computer Sciences 2% 2% 6% 12% 5% 3% 12% 4% Physical Sciencesc 8% 11% 6% 11% 14% 5% 8% 8% Social Sciencesd 10% 3% 3% 4% 3% 6% 3% 4% Sciences, Other 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2%
Environmental Sciencesa Michigans URC Northern California Southern California Illinois Massachusetts North Carolina Pennsylvania All U.S. Universities 1% 1% 7% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5%
Psychology 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2%
Engineeringe 15% 16% 7% 15% 20% 9% 22% 15%
Source: National Science Foundation, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 2004. Analysis: Anderson Economic Group, LLC a. b. c. d. e. Environmental sciences includes atmospheric and earth sciences, oceanography and other miscellaneous environmental sciences. Life sciences includes agricultural, biological, medical and other miscellaneous life sciences. Physical sciences includes astronomy, chemistry, physics other miscellaneous physical sciences. Social sciences includes economics, political sciences, sociology and other miscellaneous social sciences. Engineering includes aeronautical, biomedical, bioengineering, chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical. metallurgical, and other.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS

Beyond the direct impact of the initial R&D spending, these innovations also lead to the production and sale of new products and services. The pharmaceutical, medical, computer technology, consumer electronic, telecommunication, agricultural products, and manufacturing industries are among the many industries benefiting from research and development conducted at universities. Research and development is also important to universities for its role in attracting and retaining high quality professors and students, who in turn benefit business enterprises that need a high quality workforce and research partnerships. The success of academic research and development activities is often measured in terms of technology transfer. Common indicators include R&D expenditures, the number of patent applications filed, and the number of inventions disclosed in a given year. While these statistics show activity, they do not necessarily indicate the effectiveness of the activity. Other statistics, such as the number of patents granted, the number of licenses or options entered into, the royalty revenue, and the number of new start-ups are perhaps more telling indicators of technology transfer. We examined these indicators and attempted to find others to demonstrate the performance of the URC relative to the average U.S. institution and our comparison groups.

The URC and the Massachusetts cluster only have one university in the United States Patent Offices list of the top ten grant-receiving universities in the country for 2003. In contrast, all the universities from the Northern California cluster and two of the three universities from the California-South cluster are among the top ten grant-receiving universities. These representatives are grouped together in the University of California system. However, neither the North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Illinois clusters have any representatives on the list, suggesting that though the URC is not the leading cluster in the field of patent grants, it is still a leader in tech transfer activities. See Table 28 below.

TABLE 28. Top

10 Grant-Receiving Universities by First Named Assignee, 2003a
2003 Patent Grants Rank 9 10
University of California, The Regents of California Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Texas Stanford University, Leland Junior, The Board of Trustees of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Johns Hopkins University University of Michigan Columbia University Cornell Research Foundation Inc. Analysis: Anderson Economic Group, LLC
Source: USPTO, "U.S. Colleges and Universities - Utility Patent Grants 1969-2003" a. These numbers may differ slightly from the numbers reported by universities as the USPTO only captures the first named assignee.
The URC has helped cultivate an average of 15 start-ups annually between 2002 and 2006. As shown in Table 29 on page 44 this is more than was cultivated by the North Carolina or the Illinois cluster, equal to that of the Pennsylvania cluster, and lower than those of the Massachusetts, Northern California and California-South clusters.30
30.We relied on information provided by the universities for number of start-ups.

TABLE 29. Average

Annual Number of Start-upsa Cultivated at University Clusters, 2002-2006
Michigans URC Northern California Southern California Illinois Massachusetts North Carolina Pennsylvania Sources: Universities websites, AUTM
a. Average includes 2002-2006 data where available. Some universities and some reported statistics are based on averages of less than 5 years. See footnotes in Table 27 on page 42 for data limitations. b. See footnotes in Table 27 on page 42 for data limitations.

program (MSUE) works closely with community leaders, governments, private businesses, and entrepreneurs to encourage economic development in the state. For
47.See Caroline M. Sallee, Alex L. Rosaen, and Patrick L. Anderson, The Economic Impact of Michigan State University (2006) for a complete discussion of Wharton Centers activities and economic impact on the state of Michigan.
MSU Extension Provides Services in Every Michigan County. MSUs Extension
example, MSUE agents in Saginaw County established the Saginaw Family Child Care Network, which has trained daycare operators and offers low-income adults the opportunity to become licensed childcare providers.48 MSU Extension also created Senior Project Fresh (SPF) to give low-income seniors nutrition education and coupons that they can redeem at area farm markets to buy locally grown produce. In 2006, the second year of the program, seniors have redeemed almost $90,000 worth of coupons, improving their diets and supporting local farmers. This project is an expansion of the larger Project FRESH, which provides coupons and nutrition counseling to low-income families across the state.
BIG TEN FOOTBALL VISITOR SPENDING
Athletic events are another significant cultural and entertainment offering from URC schools. The most significant athletic event, in terms of attendance, is likely football at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, both of which compete in the Big Ten Conference. In 2006, the University of Michigan played seven games in Ann Arbor, and five of those were against an out-of-state opponent U-M also hosted games against Central Michigan University and Michigan State University. Michigan State University played seven home football games in 2006, six of which were against teams from outside the state. MSU hosted a game against Eastern Michigan University. These games were all well attended, with 770,183 fans attending games at Michigan Stadium (average of 110,026 per game) and 495,731 fans being drawn to Spartan Stadium in East Lansing (average of 70,819 per game). The combined attendance for 2006 Big Ten football games played in Ann Arbor and East Lansing was 1,265,914. While many of these fans live and work in Michigan, a significant portion come from outside the state, and their spending creates a significant economic impact in the state.
Out-of-State Visitor Economic Impact. By making some informed assumptions
about how many visitors come from outside the state, how long they stay, and how much they spend while here, we estimate that the economic impact of spending by visitors at Big Ten football games played at URC schools was $108,292,088 for the 14 games played in 2006. This includes a direct economic impact of $54,162,293, and an indirect economic impact of $54,129,088. See Appendix B. Methodology for the data and methodology we used to calculate the economic impact of these visitors.

Determined In-State Expenditures. The first step in estimating the economic impact of the URCs operational expenditures was to determine the payroll and non-payroll expenditures by the URC that remained within the state. We did this in the following steps. We obtained salary, fringe benefit, and non-payroll expenditures for the Research Corridor universities for fiscal year 2005-06 from the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 2. We relied on information provided by the universities to determine the percentage of expenditures that went to businesses located outside of Michigan. 3. We used data from the universities and the 2005 Consumer Expenditure Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate URC student expenditures in Michigan, and to account for a percentage of expenditures that go to firms outside Michigan.
Accounted for Likely Substitution. After calculating the non-payroll and payroll expenditures by the URC and student expenditures, we accounted for spending that would have occurred even if the URC were not part of the states economy. For instruction of Michigan residents, we used a substitution effect of 10%. One way to think about this is that 10% of URC students from Michigan would remain in Michigan for their college degree if the URC disappeared, and that the spending associated with their education would also remain in the state. Thus, this is not new economic activity caused by the URC.
We used a zero substitution effect for out-of-state students who come to Michigan. It is unlikely that most out-of-state students would come to Michigan for their bachelors or advanced degree if the URC were not in operation. We counted the expenditures on the instruction of and spending by these students as new economic activity caused by the URC. Most research dollars come from out-of-state sources. URC universities receive 94% of all federal research dollars in Michigan. To account for a small increase in research expenditures by other universities in Michigan in the absence of the URC, we chose a small substitution effect of 2% for research expenditures.
We used a substitution effect of 30% for faculty and staff expenditures. We assumed that almost all tenured faculty would leave the URC, but about half the staff would find jobs in Michigan. We used a substitution effect appropriate to the payroll share of staff and faculty that would leave the state. For hospital faculty and staff, we use a 14% substitution effect, assuming that some staff would go to other hospitals in Michigan if the URC universities did not exist. Finally, we used a substitution effect of 30% for non-payroll hospital expenditures. Based on the operations of the hospital, we accounted for some of the clinical care currently provided by UMHS being taken up by other hospitals in Michigan. We assumed that speciality clinics and most research would go elsewhere. See Table B-1 below.

Type 4: Out-of-state URC students who will work outside Michigan when they
graduate whether or not they would attend another Michigan college if the URC universities did not exist. The URC universities therefore has no impact on their lifetime wages earned in Michigan.
Graduates Earning No Wages in Michigan Without the URC. Type 5: In-state URC students who otherwise would have gone to a college out-
side Michigan and would have stayed outside of Michigan to work as a result. Without the URC universities, these graduates would have earned no wages in Michigan.
Type 6: Out-of-state URC students who will work in Michigan when they grad-
uate, but would not work in Michigan if they did not attend a URC university. If not for the URC universities, these students would earn no lifetime wages in Michigan.
Table B-2 below shows the parameters used in our human capital simulation model that affect the URC graduates path.

TABLE B-2. Parameters

Used in Sorting Graduates
MSU Bachelors Degrees 7,783 9.7% 75% 2% Advanced Degrees 2,876 47.2% 85% 10% U-M Bachelors Degrees 7,500 28% 75% 4% Advanced Degrees 3,500 45% 90% 2% WSU Bachelors Degrees 3,000 6% 75% 6% Advanced Degrees 1,800 19% 75% 5%
Description Number of graduates per yeara Proportion of graduates from out of stateb Proportion of graduates from out of state who leave MI to workc Proportion of graduates who otherwise would not have attended college or would not have attained an advanced degreed Proportion of graduates who otherwise would not have gone to school in MIe Of graduates from Michigan who, if not for the URC, would have gone to school out of state, the proportion who would return to work in MIf a. b. c. d. e.

8% 50%

47% 50%

26% 50%

4% 50%

18% 50%

Data Sources: MSU 2006 Data Digest, AEG estimates based on data provided by Offices of Alumni Relations at U-M and WSU. Source: URC universities Base Data: MSU Office of Alumni Relations Source: AEG estimate Base Data: 2004 Survey of Incoming Freshman, MSU Admissions Office. U-M and WSU estimated by AEG relative to MSU data. f. AEG estimate.
Human Capital Model Parameters This section contains tables of parameters used in our Human Capital Model.

TABLE B-3. Proportion

of URC Alumni Leaving the State Annually
MSU U-M Bachelors Degrees 4.9% 1.4% 0.9% 1.5% 3.0% 0.0% Advanced Degrees 4.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% WSU Bachelors Degrees 1.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% Advanced Degrees 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.2%
Age Range 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
Bachelors Degrees 1.1% 2.6% 0.9% 0.4% 0.9% 0.9%
Advanced Degrees 11.2% 2.8% 0.1% 0.3% 1.0% 0.5%
Source: Calculations by AEG, based on base data from MSU, U-M, and WSU Offices of Alumni Relations

TABLE B-4. Workforce

PATRICK L. ANDERSON

Mr. Anderson, principal and CEO, founded the consulting firm of Anderson Economic Group in 1996. Since founding the firm, he has successfully directed projects for state governments, cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, and corporations in over half of the United States. Prior to founding Anderson Economic Group, Mr. Anderson served as the chief of staff of the Michigan Department of State and as a deputy director of the Michigan Department of Management and Budget, where he was involved in the largest state privatization project in U.S. history and the landmark 1994 school finance reform constitutional amendment. Prior to his involvement in state government, Mr. Anderson was an assistant vice president of Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance, an economist for Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit, and a graduate fellow with the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Anderson has written over 100 articles published in periodicals such as The Wall Street Journal, The Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, Crains Detroit Business. His book Business Economics and Finance was published by CRC Press in August 2004, and his paper on Pocketbook Issues and the Presidency was awarded the Edmund Mennis Award for best contributed paper in 2004 by the National Association for Business Economics. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan, where he earned a masters degree in public policy and a bachelors degree in political science.

CONTRIBUTORS

Alex L. Rosaen. Mr. Rosaen is a senior analyst at Anderson Economic Group, working in the Public Policy and Economics practice area. Mr. Rosaens background is in applied economics and public finance.
Prior to joining Anderson Economic Group, Mr. Rosaen worked for the Office of Retirement Services (part of the Michigan Department of Management and Budget) for the Benefit Plan Design group. He also has worked as a mechanical engineer for Williams International in Walled Lake, MI. Mr. Rosaen holds a masters in public policy from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He also has a Master of Science degree and a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan.
Darci R. Keyes. Ms. Keyes is a senior consultant at Anderson Economic Group, with expertise in Finance and Law. She works primarily in the Finance and Business Valuation, and Public Policy, Fiscal and Economic Analysis areas.
Prior to joining Anderson Economic Group, Ms. Keyes worked as a financial analyst for Ford Motor Company where she held positions in manufacturing, internal audit, marketing and sales, accounting policy and transactional accounting. Prior to joining Ford, Ms. Keyes worked as an attorney in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where she served as a consultant in such areas as tax reporting and planning, estate planning and administration, real property acquisitions and dispositions, and other general business law. Ms. Keyes holds an M.B.A from the Katz School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh; a Juris Doctorate, with a concentration in taxation and real property, from the State University of New York at Buffalo; and a B.A. in French and business from Nazareth College in Rochester, New York. Ms. Keyes is a licensed attorney in the states of Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan. She is also a Certified Internal Auditor.