By: Christopher Cai, et al.
Authors: Christopher Cai ,Jackson Runte,Isabel, Ostrer,Kacey, Berry,Ninez, Ponce,Michael, Rodriguez,Stefano, Bertozzi, Justin S. White, James G. Kahn
Published: January 15, 2020
Financed by: Physicians for a National Health Program
Legislation analyzed: No exact legislation. A systematic economic analysis of 22 single-payer plans in the US was done.
Download the Report: from the PLOS MEDICINE, or from our backup files below.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab Author's Summary
Why was this study done?
As the US healthcare debate continues, there is growing interest in “single-payer” also known as “Medicare for All.” Single-payer uses a simplified public funding approach to provide everyone with high-quality health insurance.
Public support for provision of universal health coverage through a plan like Medicare for All is as high as 70%, but falls when costs are emphasized.
Economic models help assess the financial viability of single-payer. Yet, models vary widely in their assumptions and methods, and can be hard to compare.
What did the researchers do and find?
We found and compared cost analyses of 22 single-payer plans for the US or individual states.
Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the first year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
Studies funded by organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for single-payer.
What do these findings mean?
There is near-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all US residents.
To achieve net savings, single-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug price reductions, as well as global budgets to control spending growth over time.
Replacing private insurers with a public system is expected to achieve lower net healthcare costs.