Science
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize-winning scientist and former Caltech president, dies at 87
In 2003, the Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore, then president of Caltech, paused to reflect on his role as one of the world’s most decorated scientists.
“People keep e-mailing me to ask, ‘What is the meaning of life?’” Baltimore told an interviewer, with amusement. “And they want me to e-mail them back quickly with an answer!”
Baltimore was then 65, an age when many people are retired from public life, yet he was still actively leading one of the world’s top research universities. Others, he said, found their meaning “in friends, in dogs, in religion, in the self-reflectiveness of writing, etc. But Caltech people largely find it in the continual contest with nature.”
It was a contest that Baltimore waged right to the end of his life as a scientist, businessman and internationally respected conscience of the new world of biological engineering. He died Saturday at his home in Woods Hole, Mass., according to his wife, as reported by the New York Times. Baltimore was 87.
His death concludes one of the most illustrious careers in 20th century science. The bearded scientist with the penetrating blue eyes played a role, usually a leading one, in virtually every important national debate over the use and potential misuse of the science of genetic engineering, whether it was gene-splicing and the search for an AIDS vaccine, or the dangers of tinkering with the human genome.
But it was as a working scientist that he made his most enduring contributions, the role he was most proud of.
“When you are a scientist, and you are trying to prove or disprove a notion, you work at the bench doing the dullest, most routine things over and over and over again,” Baltimore once explained.
“I can’t tell you how many ways things go wrong. All the time you are doing this because there is an idea behind it.”
In a statement, Caltech President Thomas Rosenbaum said Baltimore’s “contributions as a virologist, discerning fundamental mechanisms and applying those insights to immunology, to cancer, to AIDS, have transformed biology and medicine.”
“David’s profound influence as a mentor to generations of students and postdocs, his generosity as a colleague, his leadership of great scientific institutions, and his deep involvement in international efforts to define ethical boundaries for biological advances, fill out an extraordinary intellectual life,” he added.
David Baltimore was born March 7, 1938, in New York City, the son of a garment industry merchant, Richard Baltimore, and Gertrude Lipschitz-Baltimore.
Richard’s family was Orthodox Jewish, from Lithuania, and though the Baltimores in America were not overtly religious, the family communicated a moral code that influenced their son’s concern for the underprivileged.
This led him to take public stands on social issues, such as the AIDS epidemic and nuclear proliferation, that other scientists shunned. In 1970, while performing experiments that would win him the Nobel Prize, he shut down his lab for a week and joined demonstrators in Boston against the Vietnam War-era invasion of Cambodia.
In high school, Baltimore enrolled in a summer program at the prestigious Jackson Laboratory at Bar Harbor, Maine, where he made a discovery that altered his life and set him on the path to science.
“It was the process of research. I discovered that I could investigate the unknown as a high school student, that the frontier of knowledge was actually very close and very accessible,” he said, many years later.
After graduating from Swarthmore College, Baltimore earned his doctorate from the Rockefeller Institute (now University), before doing three years of research at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, where he met his future wife, Alice Shih Huang. His postdoctoral student, Huang collaborated in his research on animal viruses, later becoming a full professor at Harvard Medical School. At this time, Baltimore was particularly interested in the poliovirus, which attacks the RNA (ribonucleic acid) in cells.
“He was on the cutting edge of molecular biology,” said science historian Daniel Kevles, his friend and colleague. “There was no molecular biology to speak of and very little virology. … It was a brave field of work.”
At the time, it was an ironclad rule in molecular biology that genetic information was a one-way street, flowing from the double-helix structure of DNA to the single-stranded RNA, which the cell’s machinery uses to make proteins. But some biologists were beginning to question that assumption, and Baltimore joined the hunt for evidence that genetic information might flow in both directions, which, if true, held enormous potential for understanding the spread of viruses.
After leaving the Salk, Baltimore returned to Boston and became an associate professor of microbiology at MIT. As it became apparent that not all viruses behaved alike, Baltimore launched a new classification system, one that is still in use, grouping them by families according to their genomes and replication systems.
It was during this work that he discovered an enzyme that enabled a virus made of RNA to be copied into DNA, a process known as reverse transcription. The discovery of reverse transcriptase was greeted with overheated predictions that science had at last found a cure for cancer. The thinking went, if one could use RNA to code DNA, scientists could seize control of the body’s defenses.
Baltimore knew his work did not augur a cure for cancer, but the discovery of reverse transcriptase was nonetheless important because it led to an understanding of how genes can modify cells, turning normal cells into cancer cells. Reverse transcriptase is also used by a unique family of viruses, known as retroviruses, to replicate themselves. This finding would be critical to understanding the AIDS virus, HIV, which is a retrovirus, and devising anti-HIV treatments.
Baltimore’s discovery was attended by great fanfare and led to his promotion to full professor at MIT. In 1973, he was awarded a lifetime research professorship by the American Cancer Society, and a year later was elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Finally, in 1975, with Howard Temin, a friend and colleague who had discovered reverse transcriptase around the same time, Baltimore was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine.
With the prize came fame; people began referring to Baltimore as the most influential biologist of his generation. To the general public, who did not necessarily understand what he had done, only that it was important, he became, at the age of 37, a full-fledged savant.
The award had a profound effect on colleagues.
“I don’t see it as a burden, but you can’t get away from it,” Baltimore said. “I know that when I talk to young scientists, they are looking at me and saying, ‘God, I am talking to a Nobel Prize winner.’ I try to break that down. It gets harder every year.”
His new celebrity status gave him a platform to address issues of broad cultural and scientific importance, a role Baltimore embraced.
In the 1970s, when people became concerned that gene-splicing techniques could lead to the production of super viruses, Baltimore organized a conference at Asilomar near Monterey to design a self-regulating system to monitor those experiments. In the early 1980s, he led the fight against a crash program to map all human genes, fearing, once again, unknown consequences. In each case, when it was shown the dangers had been overestimated, he then led the effort to relax federal restrictions. He became an early champion of federal AIDS research and chaired a national commission that concluded the federal government’s response to the epidemic was dangerously inadequate.
As his reputation grew, he took leadership roles on political issues. When Pope John Paul II wanted to warn President Reagan of the danger of nuclear weapons, Baltimore was one of four scientists the pontiff appointed to carry his message.
In 1984, Baltimore was chosen founding director of the new Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, molding it into one of the world’s leading institutions of its kind. Following that success, he was appointed president of the Rockefeller University.
Along the way, he became not only a respected link between the government and scientists but also a key player in the burgeoning biotechnology industry. His early involvement in the industry made him a “relatively wealthy man,” according to a 1997 Times magazine profile.
The profile described a man in the fullness of middle age, harvesting the benefits he had earned, drinking the best wines and single-malt scotch, driving appropriately luxurious but not ostentatious vehicles. “With his wife, Dr. Alice Huang, he shares a luxury duplex condominium on Union Wharf, which has a commanding view of Boston Harbor,” it said.
In person, “Baltimore’s practiced elegance frames a fierce pride and a sometimes brutal intellect, softened only by his insistence that professional criticism be leavened by personal respect.”
And then, the entire edifice crumbled as Baltimore became the focus and fall guy for one of the more infamous investigations of scientific misconduct in the last half of the 20th century. A colleague wrote a paper claiming sensational results. When others could not reproduce those results, allegations of fraud were aired, causing Congress to get involved. With the decline of the space program, biology had emerged as the preeminent science, and Congress was becoming skeptical about how millions of dollars in federal research grants were being spent.
The whiff of scandal was attached to Baltimore himself, even though his work was never questioned. Still, his refusal to admit error, or to abandon his problematic colleague, came to symbolize for many the arrogance of the new mandarins of the biological sciences.
“The Baltimore case is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal,” the New York Times wrote.
Four federal investigations and a grand jury probe later, Baltimore’s colleague, and Baltimore himself, were exonerated. The ordeal had consumed a decade of his life. Then, within months, everything changed. He was chosen to coordinate the federal effort to develop an AIDS vaccine and then appointed president of Caltech. It was a breathtaking reversal of fortune.
“It is even more breathtaking,” Baltimore said in 1997, shortly after taking the Caltech job, “to live through it.”
Kevles, a professor at Caltech at the time, recalled that when Baltimore’s name was announced to the assembled faculty, “the room erupted in cheers. I had never seen the biologists look so ecstatic. It legitimized their field.”
In his eight years as president, Baltimore raised the university’s profile, both as a place where cutting-edge biology is done and as a respected voice on pressing national scientific debates. Under his leadership, Caltech raised more than $1.1 billion. He cited the gift of $600 million to the school by Intel Corp. co-founder Gordon Moore and his wife, Betty, as the “decisive moment” of his presidency.
“Caltech is a wonderful place, the best place to do science I have ever seen,” Baltimore said in 2005, when he announced his resignation. “I will have done what I can do [as president], and it is time for somebody else to be thinking about it.”
As for what would come next, Baltimore said, “I have a fairly extensive life in science and in business that I will pursue.”
If he thought his return to the laboratory would be a placid coda to his career, he was soon proved wrong, by yet another advance in genetic engineering, this one called CRISPR. “I’ve seen revolution after revolution in biology,” Baltimore said in 2016. “This one is a big deal.”
As one writer noted, if the gene-splicing technology of the 1970s spurred images of laboratory-hatched plagues from the “Andromeda Strain” novel and movie, CRISPR inspired comparisons to “Brave New World.” MIT’s Technology Review wrote of labs in which “man rebuilds creation to suit himself” and warned of “a path toward a dystopia of superpeople.”
Just as he did decades earlier, Baltimore took a leadership role in starting a public discussion about how to manage the powerful new tool. “At Asilomar, we had identified the genetic modification of humans as the biggest coming issue,” Baltimore said. “We just didn’t know when it would come.”
A statement drafted by participants at a meeting in Napa in early 2015 spoke of the promise of “curing genetic disease” but also warned of “unknown risks to human health and well-being.”
The statement listed 18 authors, with Baltimore at the top. Though he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Let’s Hit ‘Pause’ Before Altering Humankind,” Baltimore admitted later that genome-editing would in all probability take place sooner rather than later.
After retiring as president of Caltech, he remained on staff in an emeritus capacity, and was appointed the Robert Andrews Millikan professor of biology. He finally shuttered his lab in 2019 but remained active in business. He helped found a number of companies, including Calimmune and Immune Design, which carried on the work he began in immunology and virology. Though he was most visible for his public advocacy of cancer and AIDS research, it was his work as a “lab-based, working biologist” that gave him the most pleasure, and for which he hoped to be remembered.
Besides the Nobel Prize, he received the National Medal of Science in 1999, and the Warren Alpert Foundation Prize in 2000. He was the 1999 recipient of the National Medal of Science and published more than 700 peer-reviewed articles.
He was also a member of numerous scientific advisory boards, including Amgen, the Broad Institute, Ragon Institute, and Regulus. Baltimore was past-president and chair of the American Assn. of the Advancement of Science.
He is survived by his wife, Alice, and daughter, T.K. Baltimore.
Johnson is a former Times staff writer. City News Service contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a national public health leader by staking out science-backed policies in contrast with the Trump administration.
After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “the dangerous politicization of science,” Newsom hired her to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.
Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the West Coast Health Alliance, a regional public health agency, whose guidance the governors said would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.
More recently, California became the first state to join a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.
Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.
What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.
“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”
The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and Health and Human Services declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.
Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the COVID era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”
Public health guided by science
Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has excoriated federal officials for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, warning that the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.
The governor declined an interview request, but Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”
The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and prevention efforts. The White House last year proposed cutting Health and Human Services spending by $33 billion, including $3.6 billion from the CDC. Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing and education, were axed.
The Trump administration announced that it would claw back more than $600 million in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, the states sued and a judge temporarily blocked the cut.
“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Assn. of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”
Federal funding has accounted for more than half of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3-billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.
Funding cuts hurt all
Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the county has announced the closure of seven public health clinics that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.
“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”
A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.
The U.S. eliminated measles in 2000 but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had 2,281 confirmed cases last year, the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at schools, airports and Disneyland.
Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.
“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., a coalition of public health professionals.
Robust vaccine schedule
Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a more robust vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition suing the Trump administration over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza and COVID-19.
Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.
Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.
“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.
Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and several other East Coast states banding together to create the Northeast Public Health Collaborative.
Hilliard, of Health and Human Services, said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”
Influencing red states
Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year signed a bill authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.
Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.
A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.
“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.
Two friends bought nearly identical homes last year, in the same northern Minnesota neighborhood, for the same price.
But Tara Novak pays more than twice as much for home insurance as Petra Rodriguez. The only difference? Ms. Novak has a lower credit score.
Across the country, people with weaker credit histories are paying far more for home insurance than owners with spotless records.
Where the home insurance rate gap between “fair” and “excellent” credit is higher
Home insurance premiums have risen rapidly in recent years, fueled by climate change, building costs and inflation. The price shock has rippled into the real estate market, dragging down home prices in areas vulnerable to disasters and leading insurers to abandon homeowners in risky places.
But these dynamics obscure another problem: The home insurance market has cleaved in two along a boundary defined more by a customer’s personal history than by the risk of a disaster hitting their home.
Americans with weaker credit histories, usually from missed payments or high amounts of debt, now pay significantly more for insurance, regardless of where they live, two new studies have found. While those with poor credit histories often can’t purchase homes at all, people with “fair” scores, which range from around 580 to 669, are paying twice as much in some places as people with “excellent” scores of about 800 or higher. And the gap is growing.
Insurers use a metric based on credit history known as an insurance score to set rates, and the figure tracks closely with a customer’s credit score.
The penalty for having a “fair” credit history versus an “excellent” one
States with the biggest pricing gaps
That can mean owners of identical homes, like Ms. Novak and Ms. Rodriguez, pay wildly different rates to insure them. For most people, it’s now just as expensive to have a credit score of “fair” as it is to live in an area likely to experience a disaster like a hurricane or wildfire. About 29 percent of consumers have credit scores that are categorized as “fair” or “poor.”
“There’s so many reasons people have bad credit,” Ms. Novak said. “It’s not like I’ve ever not paid a bill on time. I’m a stickler on my bills, I’m a stickler on my rent, never been late. This is not fair.”
“The choice to use credit scores in pricing means that those lower-credit home owners in risky areas are effectively subsidizing more affluent high-credit homeowners who also live in risky areas,” said Nick Graetz, assistant professor of sociology at the University for Minnesota, who wrote one of the recent papers. “So in a lot of ways, you can keep your insurance price down if you’re high income, high credit — even if you live on the coast of Florida.”
A handful of states have banned insurers from using credit data because of concerns about fairness and the potential for discrimination against low-income people and people of color, but the majority allow it.
For those with both weaker credit and high disaster risk, the combination can set them up for a downward spiral: disasters tend to be followed by decreases in credit scores as people use credit cards and bank loans to recover. That can lead to higher insurance rates, pushing monthly housing costs further out of reach.
“When a disaster hits, there’s a loss of income that occurs, and then that can impact someone’s credit score because they can’t pay their debt, they can’t pay their rent, they can’t pay their mortgage,” said Lance Triggs, executive vice president at Operation HOPE, a financial literacy nonprofit. “And now they’re faced with higher insurance premiums post-disaster.”
A working paper released today by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that homeowners with the lowest credit scores paid, on average, $550 more in 2024 for home insurance than those with the highest scores.
The findings broadly track with data from Quadrant Information Services analyzed by The New York Times, which found that, on average, lower credit scores meant higher premiums across every state that allowed the practice. Dr. Graetz used the same data set for his research, which he did in collaboration with the Consumer Federation of America and the Climate and Community Institute.
When a windstorm last year hit the home of Audrey Thayer, a city council member in Bemidji, Minn., it ripped the siding off her house and stripped shingles from her roof.
Ms. Thayer’s insurance did not cover all the damage. As she fought her insurer for more money, she opened new credit cards and bank loans to repair her home. Her credit score dropped as she tried to find a new insurance plan.
Ms. Thayer, a member of the White Earth Nation, said she was not aware that her credit score could affect her home insurance rates, even though she teaches about credit ratings at a nearby tribal college. “Most of the folks here do not have good credit,” said Ms. Thayer, whose community is one of the poorest in the state. “I did not know what a credit score was until I was 35 or so.”
In Texas, the advocacy group Texas Appleseed found that some insurers charge people with poor credit up to 12 times as much as people with excellent credit for certain policies, said Ann Baddour, the director of the nonprofit’s Fair Financial Services Project.
Higher costs have serious implications for low-income homeowners who live in the path of hurricanes, said Nadia Erosa, the operations manager at Come Dream Come Build, a nonprofit community housing development organization. After the Brownsville, Texas, region saw intense flooding last spring, some residents turned to companies offering high-interest loans to fund repairs, she said, raising the risk of the disaster-credit spiral.
“Delinquencies are going up because people cannot afford their payment,” she said.
The price of risk
Before they can get a mortgage, homebuyers are usually required by lenders to purchase home insurance.
“Households with insurance have fewer financial burdens, fewer unmet needs, they recover faster, they’re more likely to rebuild,” said Carolyn Kousky, an economist and founder of Insurance for Good, a nonprofit that focuses on finding new approaches to risk management. “Yet the people who need insurance the most are the least able to afford it.”
Insurance companies consider a variety of factors when setting the premium for a property. They might examine the age of the roof, or the area’s vulnerability to hurricanes or wildfires. They factor in how much it would cost to rebuild the house if it were damaged.
Insurers have argued that credit history is also worth considering because people with low scores tend to file more claims than those with excellent scores, an assertion that is backed up by the working paper published in the National Bureau of Economic Research today. This likely happens because people with weaker credit histories tend to have less income, and when their home is damaged, they file insurance claims for smaller fixes that a wealthier homeowner might pay for out of pocket.
Paul Tetrault, senior director at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, a trade organization, said credit scores are a valid way to price premiums.
But others argue that using credit information to price insurance doesn’t make sense.
Because a homeowner pays for insurance upfront, “it’s not like you’re really extending a loan to the customer where you would be worried about the risk of repayment,” Ms. Kousky said. She points out that insurance companies can opt not to renew a homeowner’s policy if they believe it is too risky — a tactic they have been using with increasing frequency.
The NBER analysis found that homeowners who want to pay less for insurance should pay off debt to raise their credit score rather than replace roofs and make other improvements to avoid damage when disaster strikes.
Others believe that even if credit scores are accurate predictors of future claims, they shouldn’t be used to set premiums because that can perpetuate or worsen disparities. For example, people in their mid-20s who are Black, low-income, or grow up in impoverished regions have significantly lower credit scores than their peers, a July working paper from Opportunity Insights, a not-for-profit organization at Harvard University, found.
“When the government and the financial system mandate that we buy a product, there’s a special obligation to make sure the pricing is fair,” said Doug Heller, director of insurance at the Consumer Federation. “To me that is an absolutely solid reason, just like we don’t allow pricing based on race or income or ethnicity or religion.”
A natural experiment
A handful of states, including California and Massachusetts, have banned or limited the use of credit scores in setting home insurance premiums, despite opposition from the insurance industry.
In Nevada, where a temporary pandemic-related rule prevented insurers from using credit history to increase premiums for existing customers from 2020 to 2024, companies refunded approximately $27 million to nearly 200,000 policyholders, said Drew Pearson, a spokesman for the Nevada Division of Insurance.
Perhaps the clearest example of the effects of these bans comes from Washington State, which banned the use of credit information in setting home insurance premiums starting in June 2021. The rule immediately faced legal challenges, and was in effect for just a few months until it was overturned in court.
But the episode allowed researchers to evaluate the effect of credit factors on insurance premiums. When the rule took effect, people with the lowest credit scores saw a decrease in premiums of about $175 annually while those with the highest scores saw an increase of about $100, the NBER analysis found.
“We could see the dynamics of insurance pricing for the same households over time,” said Benjamin Keys, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, who co-authored the paper.
What homeowners paid before and after a ban on credit-based pricing in Washington State
Values compared with premiums paid by homeowners with “medium” credit scores (717 to 756)
In Minnesota, where Tara Novak, Petra Rodriguez and Audrey Thayer live, a state task force looked at ways to lower insurance costs for residents. It recently considered a ban or limit on the use of credit scores to set rates, but did not move forward with a recommendation.
Ms. Rodriguez said she doesn’t think it’s fair that her friend Ms. Novak should have to pay so much more for insurance to live in an identical house.
A credit score doesn’t capture anything about a person’s habits, or what they’re like as a tenant, or even years of on-time rent payments, she said. “It’s not who you are,” she said.
Methodology
Home insurance policy rates were supplied by Quadrant Information Services, an insurance data solutions company. The rates shown are representative of publicly sourced filings and should not be interpreted as bindable quotes. Actual individual premiums may vary.
‘States with the biggest pricing gaps’Rates shown are based on a home insurance policy with $400,000 of dwelling coverage and a $100,000 liability limit on a new home, for a homeowner age 50 or younger. Rates are averaged for all the individual company filings represented in the sample, which add up to a majority of the market share in each state but do not cover all active insurers in the state. Rates are also averaged to the state level from zip code level data.
‘The credit penalty in each state’Each insurance company incorporates credit history information differently, often using proprietary methods, so the scores do not map directly to FICO credit scores.
‘What homeowners paid before and after a ban on credit-based pricing in Washington State’Data shown are based on observations of real home insurance policies and homeowner credit scores from ICE McDash analyzed by the researchers of Blonz, Hossain, Keys, Mulder and Weill (2026). The price comparisons across credit score tiers controlled for variance in disaster risk, insurance policy characteristics, geography, and other year to year fluctuations.
Planetary warming has significantly accelerated over the past 10 years, with temperatures rising at a higher rate since 2015 than in any previous decade on record, a new study showed.
The Earth warmed around 0.35 degrees Celsius in the decade to 2025, compared to just under 0.2C per decade on average between 1970 and 2015, according to a paper published on Friday in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. This is the first statistically significant evidence of an acceleration of global warming, the authors said.
The past three years have been the hottest on record, compared to the average before the Industrial Revolution. In 2024, warming went past 1.5C, the lower limit set by the Paris Agreement. That target refers to temperature increases over 20 years, but breaching it for one year shows efforts to slow down climate change have been insufficient, the scientists who wrote the new paper said.
The findings shed light on an ongoing debate among researchers. While there is consensus that greenhouse gas emissions have caused the planet to heat up since pre-industrial times, that warming had been steady for decades. But record-breaking temperatures in recent years have led scientists to question whether the pace of temperature gains is accelerating.
Demonstrating that was difficult due to natural fluctuations in temperatures. The researchers filtered out the “noise” to make the “underlying long-term warming signal” more clearly visible, said Grant Foster, a co-author of the study and a U.S.-based statistics expert.
Researchers isolated phenomena including the El Niño weather phase, volcanic eruptions and solar irradiance. When looking at temperature increases without their influence, the authors concluded the evidence is “strong” that the accelerated warming was not due to an unusually hot 2023 and 2024, but that since 2015 global temperatures departed from their previous, slower path of warming.
The new report adds to a growing body of work that indicates climate change is having a quicker and larger impact on the planet than scientists have understood. A separate paper published this week found that many studies on sea-level increases underestimate how much water along the coast has already risen.
“If the warming rate of the past 10 years continues, it would lead to a long-term exceedance of the 1.5C limit of the Paris Agreement before 2030,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, the lead author of the warming study and a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero.”
Millan writes for Bloomberg.
‘American Classic’ is a hidden gem that gets even better as it goes
Slay the Spire II is even better with a friend
Cuban activist to Trump: ‘Make Cuba great again’ by ending communist rule
Trump stirs GOP primary drama with visit to Massie’s Kentucky home turf
Key fitness measure is strong predictor of longevity after certain age, study finds
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Trump stirs GOP primary drama with visit to Massie’s Kentucky home turf
Israeli air strike targets building in south Lebanon
Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics
Trump reveals top issues GOP should focus on to secure midterms victory: ‘I’ve never been more confident’
NATO intercepts another Iranian missile in Turkish airspace
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Pennsylvania5 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Sports6 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Virginia6 days agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia
-
Politics1 week agoMamdani’s response to Trump’s Iran strike sparks conservative backlash: ‘Rooting for the ayatollah’