What are the projected impacts of US universal healthcare on employer healthcare spending and wages?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Universal or single‑payer proposals would shift much of the roughly $536 billion employers now spend on premiums into public financing and could be funded with payroll‑style taxes smaller than current employer and household outlays, according to academic modeling [1]. Employers today report sharply rising health‑care costs—median projected increases around 7–9% for 2025–26 and average per‑employee costs near $17,500 in 2025—which employers say crowds out wage growth and raises employee cost sharing [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Employer pain: accelerating health‑care spending is already squeezing paychecks
Employers face the highest projected health‑care cost trends in a decade, with surveys showing employers forecasting almost 8% cost growth for 2025 and a median 9% for 2026 [2] [3]. Mercer reports average employer‑sponsored health insurance cost per employee hit $17,496 in 2025 and warns costs will exceed $18,500 in 2026 absent major changes [4]. Employers and analysts link those rising benefits bills to constrained wage growth because firms treat health benefits as part of total compensation and “if they are spending more on health care, they will probably spend less on traditional salary increases” [5].
2. What “universal healthcare” proponents claim it would do to employer spending
Academic modeling cited by proponents finds employer premiums today amount to roughly $536 billion and that a universal single‑payer plan could be financed with taxation at rates below current combined employer/household spending—yielding national‑level savings (an estimated ~13% reduction in national health spending in one model) and replacing employer premium outlays with a payroll‑style tax equivalent to a lower rate than present employer spend in some scenarios [1]. That framing implies employers would see direct relief from premium bills, converting a large payroll cost into a tax or fee.
3. Where the savings would come from — and what’s contested
The modeling points to savings from simplified administration and the “medical administrative activity” reductions under a single‑payer model, plus bargaining power to lower prices, producing an estimated $450+ billion annual national savings in one analysis [1]. However, available sources do not include counter‑estimates from employer groups or detailed transition costs in those same studies; Business Group on Health and Mercer focus on near‑term cost drivers like drugs and utilization rather than modeling long‑run policy transitions [2] [6]. Therefore, precise employer‑level gains depend on the plan’s tax structure and the degree to which provider and drug prices are reduced—details not provided in the cited modeling [1].
4. Likely short‑term effects employers themselves expect
Even without a universal reform, employers are already planning benefit and plan‑design changes to manage rising costs—many expect to manage nominal increases down via higher deductibles, narrower networks, or plan tweaks [3] [6]. Analysts warn that those adjustments raise worker out‑of‑pocket costs and could worsen affordability and retention [7] [8]. If universal coverage removes employer premium obligations, employers would no longer face the annual premium inflation that Mercer and Business Group stress, but sources do not specify how quickly employers would convert payroll savings into higher wages versus other uses [5] [4].
5. Wages: the redistribution question policymakers and employers debate
Multiple sources link higher employer health spending to suppressed wage growth because firms treat benefits and wages as a single compensation pool; Mercer and NPR reporting note employers often offset higher benefits spending by limiting raises [5] [4]. The academic model implies that replacing employer premiums with a tax could free up payroll resources, but it does not prove those funds would be returned to workers as wages—available sources do not quantify the share of employer premium savings that would become higher wages versus dividends, price reductions, or other corporate uses [1].
6. Political and practical constraints that shape outcomes
Public polling and policy debate remain divided; Britannica notes Americans are split on government versus private systems and emphasizes political barriers [9]. Business and benefits surveys reveal employers’ immediate concerns are drug prices, specialty therapies and utilization—issues that any universal plan would have to address to deliver the modeled savings [2] [6]. The academic modeling assumes reforms that reduce administrative overhead and prices; if real‑world legislation falls short on those levers, employer savings would be smaller than the model projects [1].
7. Bottom line for employers, workers and policymakers
If implemented at the scope modeled, universal single‑payer systems could eliminate the $536 billion employer premium bill and fund coverage with lower or differently structured taxes, producing sizable system‑level savings in that analysis [1]. But current employer surveys show large near‑term cost pressures, rising premiums and increased worker cost sharing—changes that already depress wages—so the distributional outcome depends on tax design, price controls and political tradeoffs; the cited sources document the cost pressures and the modelled potential savings but do not demonstrate the specific path from employer premium relief to higher take‑home pay [2] [3] [5] [1].
Limitations: The analysis relies on employer surveys and one academic modeling paper provided in the search results; alternative estimates, employer responses to actual legislation, and long‑term behavioral or market adjustments are not present in the available reporting [2] [6] [1].