Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the estimated healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants in the US?
Executive Summary
Studies of healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants in the United States consistently find that undocumented immigrants use less health care per person and, in aggregate, appear to contribute more in premiums and taxes than is spent on their care. Multiple large cross-sectional analyses (2017–2022) estimate net surpluses ranging from roughly $51.9 billion to $58.3 billion in the year analyzed, with undocumented immigrants accounting for most of that surplus [1] [2] [3]. Recent state-level work through 2025 also emphasizes that coverage availability varies widely by state and shapes fiscal and access outcomes [4] [5].
1. Numbers that grab attention: How big are the estimated net contributions?
Multiple analyses converge on a similar quantitative picture: aggregate estimates show immigrants paid substantially more in premiums and taxes than insurers and governments paid on their behalf in a given year, with reported net surpluses of about $51.9 billion to $58.3 billion attributed largely to undocumented immigrants [1] [2] [3]. These figures come from cross-sectional assessments of multiple surveys and administrative data for 2017 and later syntheses. The studies frame the surplus as the difference between premiums/taxes paid and third‑party payer spending, and they highlight undocumented immigrants as a major source of net fiscal contribution to health financing [6].
2. Per-person spending: Immigrants spend less per person than U.S.-born residents
Analyses of per-capita expenditures show a consistent pattern: unauthorized immigrants and immigrants generally have substantially lower annual health expenditures per person than U.S.-born individuals, with published per-person figures such as $1,629 for unauthorized immigrants, $3,795 for authorized immigrants, and $6,088 for U.S.-born individuals in one cited study [7]. These lower per-person costs help explain how aggregate net contributions can be positive even when the total population of immigrants grows. The data underpin arguments that immigration is not the primary driver of rising per-capita healthcare spending in the U.S. [3].
3. Methodology matters: What those surplus numbers actually measure
The studies estimate a net fiscal balance by comparing taxes and insurance premiums paid by immigrants to what insurers and public programs paid on their behalf, focusing on third‑party payer costs rather than total societal costs or uncompensated care. The result is sensitive to definitions (who counts as undocumented), the year of analysis (many use 2017), and data sources (surveys like MEPS and CPS). Authors explicitly present the surplus as a financing metric rather than a full accounting of health system impacts, and different analytic choices could change magnitude and interpretation [2] [6].
4. State policy differences: Coverage expansions change the picture locally
Recent 2025 work highlights that state-level policy choices significantly affect coverage, utilization, and costs for undocumented immigrants, with some states expanding Emergency Medicaid interpretation to cover ongoing chronic care while others maintain large gaps [4]. Research through mid-2025 shows states with more expansive immigrant coverage have lower uninsured rates and improved access, which can reduce uncompensated care and shift cost patterns, indicating that national aggregate estimates may mask substantial subnational variation in fiscal and health outcomes [5].
5. Multiple viewpoints and possible agendas behind the numbers
Scholars and advocates emphasize that the surplus figures counter political claims that immigrants disproportionately drain health resources, using the positive net‑contribution finding to argue for more inclusive policies [1] [6]. Conversely, critics could highlight limitations: the focus on premiums/taxes paid versus third‑party spending omits uncompensated emergency care costs, local fiscal burdens on safety‑net providers, and non-financial system impacts. The literature underscores that both fiscal contributions and access shortcomings coexist, and framing often aligns with broader policy goals [6] [4].
6. What’s missing and why policymakers should care
The studies provide strong evidence that undocumented immigrants are not a major net drain on third‑party health payers and often subsidize the system, but they leave gaps: longitudinal costs, uncompensated care dynamics, local safety‑net fiscal pressures, and the effects of expanding coverage receive less consistent quantification. State-level research from 2025 suggests policy changes can alter costs and access quickly, signaling that national aggregate surpluses do not settle tradeoffs at the state or provider level [5] [4]. Policymakers need both national and local analyses to design equitable, fiscally sound solutions [2].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking a short answer
If the question is whether undocumented immigrants are estimated to be a net cost to the U.S. health‑care financing system, the best available cross-sectional analyses through 2022 find the opposite: documented net contributions on the order of tens of billions of dollars in the studied years, paired with lower per-capita spending than U.S.-born people. However, state policy differences and measurement choices matter, and local fiscal and access challenges require targeted attention beyond the headline national figures [1] [2] [4].