Ohio continues to rank terribly among the states, from the economy to health care
Ohio continues to rank terribly in nearly every way possible, according to the latest state rankings from the U.S. News & World Report.
The Buckeye State slid two more spots in the report's latest rankings of the 50 states, moving from No. 36 in the 2023 report to No. 38 in the latest iteration.
In addition to ranking No. 38 overall, Ohio also ranks No. 41 in natural environment, No. 41 in higher education, No. 39 in economy, No. 34 in health care, No. 30 in crime and corrections, No. 30 in education overall, No. 30 in infrastructure, and No. 25 in fiscal stability.
On only one metric, opportunity, does Ohio crack the top half of states, at No. 17.
The U.S. News & World Report has been ranking the states since 2017, and Ohio has bounced around the bottom states in America that entire time.
In 2017, we were No. 35. In 2018, we dropped to No. 40. The year of 2019 saw us roaring back to No. 39. After no rankings in 2020, we came in at No. 36 in 2021 and climbed mightily to No. 34 by 2023 before dropping back down to No. 36 last year and now No. 38 this year.
Before anyone starts howling with indignation about how horribly unfair and biased the U.S. News & World Report must be, I'll note that the No. 1 ranked state for three years running is Utah — not exactly a bastion of crunchy liberal thinking.
So no, these aren't politicized rankings: Ohio's elected leaders fully earned this pathetic spot for our state via their poisonous politics and terrible policies and priorities.
Ohio politicians don't need to worry though. Ohio voters seem determined to give them all endless free passes to do whatever they want no matter how atrocious the outcomes or rampant the corruption.
I assume their cushy careers will all be fine no matter how terribly Ohio does by every available metric, as long as they put the right party label next to their name on the ballot given whatever their geographic location. Actions don't matter. Outcomes don't matter. Rampant corruption doesn't matter. Only partisan politics matters. Right?
Let's take a look at some of those outcomes.
On the issue of crime, for corrections outcomes, Ohio ranks No. 46. On public safety, No. 22. Our incarceration and juvenile incarceration rates are both above the national average, but the violent crime rate is below the national average.
On the economy, we rank No. 30 for business environment, No. 43 for employment, and No. 36 for growth. Our venture capital investment, migration from other states, and job growth numbers all fall below the national average.
In education, our pre-K-12 ranks No. 15, while higher education ranks No. 41. Our student debt at graduation is higher than the national average, but so is our high school graduation rate and math scores.
Back in 2010, Ohio was ranked by Education Week as having the 5th best public school system in the nation. We've fallen far, and state lawmakers are looking at abandoning the Fair School Funding Plan, so who knows what that will do. School districts are already struggling mightily, with Akron for instance looking at $44 million worth of cuts. Being No. 15 in K-12 right now isn't a point of pride or reason for optimism.
On fiscal stability, Ohio's long-term outlook ranks No. 16, most likely because we have around $3.7 billion sitting in our rainy day fund. The short-term outlook isn't so hot though, ranking No. 40 among the states, with our liquidity still well below the national average.
Health care is all pretty terrible for Ohio. We rank No. 40 in public health, No. 36 in health care access, and No. 28 in health care quality. Access to health care is set to take an enormous tumble if President Trump and Republicans in Congress pass the enormous Medicaid cuts they want.
More than 1 in 4 Ohioans rely on Medicaid – including 40% of children, 20% of working-age adults, and 10% of seniors. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans stand to lose their health insurance under the Trump Republican cuts. Right now about 8.4% of Ohioans don't have health insurance. That number is poised to skyrocket under the Trump plan. Again though, please rest assured, in case you were worried, the wealthy and well-connected will continue to do fabulously well.
In infrastructure, at No. 30 overall, Ohio ranks No. 15 in transportation, but comes in at No. 30 for internet access, and No. 32 for energy.
On natural environment, we rank No. 24 on air and water quality, but No. 45 for pollution.
As far as opportunity, Ohio is affordable, ranking No. 16. However, things get worse when it comes to equality, ranking No. 21. They fall off a cliff when it comes to economic opportunity, ranking at No. 38.
These rankings don't capture some other things of note. For instance, 1.8 million Ohioans are food insecure. That's out of a population of 11.88 million, which means more than 15% of our population is regularly going hungry. Data from Feeding America shows 1 in 5 Ohio children live in homes that are food insecure. Ohio is also among the top eight states for worst infant mortality.
Taken all-in-all, while there might not be much opportunity to improve your lot in Ohio, at least it's a vaguely affordable place to stagnate in poverty.
We might have a lot of infant deaths, low incomes, hungry children and families, a lack of health care access, poor public health outcomes, horrible pollution, pathetic corrections, a bad employment situation, a bad energy situation, dim prospects for growth, worsening higher education, and disinvestment from public schools, but at least we have… middling prospects for long-term fiscal stability.
Congratulations, Ohio. We're No. 38. We're No. 38.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Trump Bill Student Loan Changes Spur New College-Goers to Reconsider Plans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Since President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, new federal loan limits are set to go into effect. The law also issued the elimination of certain repayment options and removal of Grad PLUS loans, prompting many college students to rethink whether and how they would finish their degrees, according to a new U.S. News survey. Why It Matters The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set new annual and lifetime borrowing limits for graduate and professional students that take effect for new loans beginning July 1 next year. The law also reduces the number of available federal repayment plans for some borrowers, creating immediate uncertainty for those planning graduate or professional degrees. Due to the changes, millions of current and prospective students might face higher out-of-pocket costs or reduced repayment flexibility, and experts say those shifts could alter enrollment, degree choices and reliance on private credit for education financing. Harvard graduates listen attentively to speakers during the commencement ceremony in Harvard Yard on May 29, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard graduates listen attentively to speakers during the commencement ceremony in Harvard Yard on May 29, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Libby O'Neill/Getty Images What To Know The U.S. News survey of 1,190 college students found 61 percent of students said they would be personally impacted by the law, and 35 percent said they were considering cutting back on schooling. Roughly 32 percent were considering pursuing a different degree, and 38 percent said they were considering using private student loans to fill funding gaps. "On social media, a lot of students feel like they've been sold a lie. Just a few years ago, coding was pitched as the next big career track. Now, many coders are already being replaced by AI, ironically by the very technology they built," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "That's created real fear about pouring money and years into degrees that may not hold value." The survey also reported that student stress about paying for college increased after the law, with the share saying they felt "extremely" stressed rising from 24 percent to 31 percent. The majority of college students also said they don't support any of the law's changes, at 51 percent. The changes that gained the highest approvals were the borrowing caps or the elimination of certain income-driven repayment plans, at just around 20 percent. The exact ways college students will be impacted by the GOP law vary. In addition to around a third choosing to cut back on schooling or pursue a different degree, another 31 percent said they would consider going abroad to finish school, while 26 percent were thinking about joining the military to help pay for their college. "The American Dream has always been the freedom and opportunity to attain a better life, and there is no better path up the socioeconomic ladder than higher education," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek. "This law hurts student loan borrowers, which disproportionately hurts middle- and lower-income families, the same groups who need it the most." The One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced various changes to the federal student loan borrower system, including annual and lifetime caps on federal borrowing for graduate and professional students and the elimination of the Grad PLUS program for future borrowers. The caps would limit graduate borrowing to $20,500 per year with a $100,000 lifetime cap, and professional programs such as medical or law school would face annual caps of $50,000 and a $200,000 lifetime cap for loans taken after July 1, 2026. "That means lower-income students will likely be priced out or pushed toward private loans that carry higher interest rates. Over time, that could widen the gap in access—especially for minorities trying to enter fields like medicine," Thompson said. "The government's hope is that by removing subsidies, tuition costs will eventually fall. But whether that actually happens remains to be seen." Newsweek reached out to the Department of Education for comment via email. What People Are Saying Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "This law essentially forces student and parent borrowers out of the federal student loan system and into the laps of the banks, which have proven time and again they are not going to be friendly to borrowers. The mere existence of federal loans forced the banks to offer more competitive interest rates in return for the lack of protections on the federal loan side. Once borrowers have maxed out their federal loans under the new law, the banks will not have any incentive to offer any friendly terms." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The changes coming to student loan distribution and repayment are significant, with the pathway to less expensive monthly payments and loan forgiveness becoming a more difficult one, if not impossible for students who are already in certain income brackets. "Changes to loan distribution in 2026 could also make it more challenging to secure federally backed student loans for certain majors that fail to meet the new percentage income standards if those rules are strictly enforced. Combine all those new additions with currently high interest rates on new loans, and it's easy to see why students are cautious on their academic road ahead." What Happens Next The wide range of changes enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could mean falling enrollment at universities as more students opt for community colleges, Thompson said. "If tuition at four-year schools doesn't drop, demand for community colleges may push their prices up too," Thompson said. "If that shift plays out, the result could be a wider gap in white-collar careers, with lower-income students getting pushed more toward trades."
Fox News
09-08-2025
- Fox News
The fight over charter schools in some of America's rural states
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Vermont have resisted charter schools due to the negative impact such institutions can have on rural school districts — but that's reportedly changing due to a shift in political leadership. "These are states that love their rural public schools, that depend upon their rural public schools," Carol Burris told Education Week. Burris is the executive director of the Network for Public Education, an advocacy group focused on supporting and improving traditional public schools. "These are not states that are going to be welcoming charter schools," Burris added. Burris said that rural states typically resist charter schools. Most states restrict parents to schools within their zip code or the school district that presides over their residential area, but charter schools allow parents the option to send their kids to a different school. When charter schools are located near public schools, they compete for per-pupil funding as parents are allowed to opt out of sending their children to the neighborhood public school. Concerns include that the money taken away from traditional public schools could be used to boost teachers' salaries, invest in public school facilities and recruit more teachers. North Dakota was previously among the states blocking charter school efforts but eventually embraced them. Education Week also spoke with North Dakota's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Kirsten Baesler, who was recently nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as the assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education in the U.S. Department of Education. Baesler still has to be confirmed by Congress. Baesler said the "desire for more school choice among legislators and voters changed things," which "prompted the legislature to pass the new law allowing charters" in North Dakota. "This new position—approved by the state's super-majority Republican legislature—also aligns more closely with the Trump administration's policies on K-12 education," Education Week reported. According to American Federation for Children President Tommy Schultz, Trump's Big Beautiful Bill will have a huge impact on education in the country. It is considered "the biggest piece of legislation that's ever passed in school choice history" by establishing a federal tax-credit scholarship program. Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon previously signaled concern about children being trapped in failing schools. "You're not going to have a lot of charter schools in North Dakota. It's rural, and it's small," Burris said. She added that residents "value local control and fiscal prudence, which has contributed to a cautious approach toward new state-funded educational models." The report from Education Week came after several red states with GOP resistance to charter schools eventually flipped on the issue. Iowa, Idaho, Tennessee, Wyoming and Texas eventually passed universal school choice, overcoming pushback from state-level Republican lawmakers who had previously obstructed the effort. The states have many constituents who live in rural areas. Rural schools tend to face funding challenges due to low enrollment and scarce resources. Rural Republicans, once obstacles to school choice measures, have shifted to supporting the policy in those states. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds overcame resistance from her GOP colleagues when she sought to pass universal school choice legislation. Reynolds endorsed nine candidates with a pro-parent platform in primary elections, ousting incumbent GOP candidates who did not support that platform. A similar phenomenon occurred in Texas and Tennessee. Several states with GOP trifectas passed universal school choice legislation. Montana is another state that embraced charter schools after electing a Republican governor, Education Week reported. The state's superintendent of public instruction said the fate of charter schools depends on the state's political leadership. "It depends on the legislature. Charter schools have become a cause of the Republican Party," Montana's Superintendent of Public Instruction Susie Hedalen told Education Week. "When Montana had a governor who was a Democrat, the state rejected charter schools," she said. School choice policies typically face hurdles in blue states and where teachers' unions have significant influence. Left-leaning teachers' unions usually reject school choice measures, claiming they debilitate public school funding and resources. No Democratic-controlled state has passed school choice legislation. "Burris expressed doubts that Nebraska or Vermont will implement any kind of charter authorization laws, because Nebraska has strong support for its public schools and Vermont's legislature is controlled by Democrats," reported Education Week.
Wall Street Journal
07-08-2025
- Wall Street Journal
Trump ‘Wins' on the Backs of U.S. Consumers
Greg Ip's analysis of President Trump's trade war 'victory' rests on a fundamental economic misunderstanding ('Deal or No Deal, Trump Wins on Trade,' U.S. News, July 16). Mr. Ip writes that the president has succeeded because others are paying for access to the U.S. market, citing $27 billion in June customs revenue. Yet tariffs are paid by U.S. importing companies to the Treasury, not foreign exporters. That $27 billion didn't come from Chinese or European governments—it came from American businesses. These costs are then passed on to American consumers through higher prices, as is evidenced by the most recent inflation reports. This means Americans, not foreigners, are paying for these tariffs twice: first through corporate tariff payments, then through elevated consumer prices.
