Bill Overview
Title: Restaurant Relief Act
Description: This bill provides support for restaurants and other businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and extends the moratorium on the implementation of a Department of Health and Human Services rule related to prescription drug pricing. Specifically, the bill provides additional funding for the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide grants to support the ongoing operations of eligible restaurants and similar establishments. The SBA must report weekly and biweekly information about grant applications, awards, and denials. The bill also establishes procedures for the SBA to implement and provide administrative support for these grant programs. The SBA must institute an oversight and audit plan to review the use of grants under these programs. The funds provided to the SBA by the bill are designated as an emergency requirement, which exempts the funds from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules. Finally, the bill extends until January 1, 2028, the moratorium on the implementation of the rule revising certain safe harbor protections for prescription drug discounts, drug pricing, and pharmacy benefit manager service fees.
Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People employed in the restaurant industry
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The Restaurant Relief Act provides support specifically for restaurants and similar establishments affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- According to the National Restaurant Association, there are over 1 million restaurant locations in the U.S. employing over 15 million people, making the restaurant industry a significant stakeholder in this bill.
- Globally, the bill's direct fiscal support does not apply outside the U.S., but international restaurants could be indirectly impacted by similar policies.
- The extension of the moratorium on the Department of Health and Human Services rule affects prescription drug pricing, impacting patients and pharmacies across the U.S.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily benefits restaurants impacted by COVID-19, which is a large industry employing many people. However, the impact on each individual varies based on role within the restaurant, location, and the pre-existing financial situation of the establishment.
- The budget of $2 billion in the first year suggests the policy can reach many but not all, given the industry size.
- Some employees may experience indirect benefits through job preservation, while restaurant owners directly benefit through financial support.
- The extension on prescription drug moratorium directly impacts consumers of drugs who may experience delayed price changes.
- 20 interviews cover a broad spectrum from restaurant owners, employees, unaffected individuals, and secondary beneficiaries like suppliers.
- The policy does not affect everyone equally; some, like restaurant staff, will have indirect stability benefits rather than immediate financial relief. Impact levels from 'none' to 'high' are recorded.
Simulated Interviews
Restaurant Owner (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant will help cover operational costs and is likely to prevent closure, which would not have been possible without support.
- However, the process for applying and receiving the funds seems bureaucratic and challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Restaurant Chef (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will hopefully keep my job more secure as the restaurant stays open.
- I have concerns about what happens after the funding is exhausted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Waitress (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It provides some stability, but my wages haven't changed.
- I'm more hopeful for my workplace remaining open.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Restaurant Supplier (Nashville, TN)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restaurants staying open ensures my business continues.
- This indirectly helps me as my clients are more financially stable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retiree (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect me directly, but I appreciate having local restaurants remain open for convenience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Restaurant Delivery Driver (Miami, FL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be increased demand for deliveries if restaurants do better.
- I think this indirectly helps by ensuring there are restaurants to deliver for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Restaurant Manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This grant can be important if our customer flow drops again.
- I'm hopeful for a continued operation and keeping the current staff employed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides a necessary buffer for my clients.
- Some seriously need these grants to survive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Pharmacy Technician (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extension on drug pricing rule is good for the stability of my job and industry long term, though it delays price adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Barista (Portland, OR)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job isn't directly supported by this policy, but it's good to see the industry getting help.
- Does not impact my personal situation significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 5: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The allocation of grants is contingent on sustained economic conditions, requiring ongoing assessment to adapt funding as needed.
- A strong audit and oversight program by the SBA is crucial to ensure grant funds are used effectively and with accountability.
- The exclusion of these funds from budget enforcement rules could lead to increased federal debt levels.