Patri Friedman

And the thing is, the more complex a program is, the larger the *hidden* cost of people simply getting overwhelmed and giving up even through they're otherwise eligible. So you can make more people eligible but also drop previously-eligible people by creating a friction barrier.

And the thing about approaching public programs from the vantage point of technology and service design is we can actually *measure* the costs of this complexity: - Conversion dropoff on a complex application form - The funnel of eligibility steps (say, 15% loss at interview)

I want to emphasize that the additive complexity of programs that comes from well-meaning legislators and advocates comes from a place of good intentions. And any given addition isn't hugely costly. But—iterated over decades—we end up with deeply costly levels of complexity.

And the thing is even when we try to simplify programs, sometimes we don't even really do that: we add a simplified version for some subcategory, but that's now just basically *another* line in a spaghetti diagram, even if it leads to a less complex ball of yarn.

And so here are just some of the costs of public policy complexity: - Harder for people it serves to understand - High-cost to administer - Harder to garner and maintain political support (take ACA's complex market subsidies vs. the simplicity of Medicare)

My other favorite example is around integration of different safety net benefits: everyone wants to talk up Medicaid and SNAP dual enrollment but A HOUSEHOLD IS LITERALLY DEFINED DIFFERENTLY ACROSS THE TWO PROGRAMS!! (Aside: our IBI team is doing heroic work on this problem.)