The uniquely American strategy to giving well being insurance coverage by means of employers is a small-recognized but significant driver of escalating labor marketplace inequality, suggests a paper to be discussed at the Brookings Papers on Financial Activity (BPEA) conference on March 31.

The authors—Amy Finkelstein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technologies, Casey McQuillan and Owen Zidar of Princeton University, and Eric Zwick of the University of Chicago—use a stylized model of the labor marketplace to evaluate the present method, in which about half of Americans are covered by employer-supplied well being insurance coverage, to a hypothetical method in which well being insurance coverage is financed by a payroll tax, related in spirit to the universal well being insurance coverage in nations such as Germany and Canada.

The model shows that, in 2019, below a payroll-tax financed method, employment of complete-time workers with no a college degree (ages 25 to 64) would have been almost 500,000 higher, typical annual earnings for these workers would have been about $1,700 larger, and the gap amongst the typical earnings of college-educated workers (with a bachelor’s degree or larger) and workers with no a college degree would have been 11% smaller sized.

“These calibrated labor marketplace effects … are in the exact same ballpark as estimates of the influence of other top drivers of labor marketplace inequality” such as enhanced trade, outsourcing, use of robots, decreased unionization, and the declining inflation-adjusted minimum wage, according to the paper, The Overall health Wedge and Labor Marketplace Inequality.

Employer-supplied well being insurance coverage discourages the hiring of non-college educated workers simply because the per-worker expense is the exact same, regardless of how significantly a worker earns, and is therefore proportionately larger for decrease-paid workers. Typical premiums had been about $12,000 a year in 2019. That was about 25% of the typical annual earnings (about $50,000) of a non-college educated worker but only about 12% of the typical annual earnings of a college-educated worker (about $one hundred,000), according to the paper.

A number of top economists have conjectured about the significant influence of this “health wedge” on U.S. inequality but small operate, till the paper presented at the BPEA conference, has quantified the influence.

And simply because well being care spending as a share of U.S. gross domestic solution has a lot more than doubled from 1977 to 2019 (and the typical well being insurance coverage premium has quadrupled in inflation-adjusted terms), the impact on inequality has enhanced drastically more than the previous 4 decades, according to the paper. A lot of other nations also seasoned each an boost in well being care spending and labor marketplace inequality, but the increases have been bigger in the United States, the paper says.

“Our evaluation suggests that if the expense of well being care in the United States continues its fast rise more than the coming years, labor marketplace inequality will continue to develop in the absence of substantial reforms to how we finance well being insurance coverage in America,” the authors create.

The paper stops brief of recommending switching to payroll tax financing. Nonetheless, it notes that 1 step in that path would be to modify the present tax method, which excludes employer contributions to well being insurance coverage from taxable revenue, therefore successfully subsidizing private insurance coverage by about $300 billion a year. Replacing this tax exclusion with a tax credit that phases out as revenue rises would move the method partway toward the positive aspects of payroll tax financing.


Finkelstein, Amy, Casey McQuillan, Owen Zidar, and Eric Zwick. 2023. “The Overall health Wedge and Labor Marketplace Inequality.” BPEA Conference Draft, Spring.


This investigation was supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Zidar was also supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant Quantity 1752431, and Zwick was supported by the Fama Analysis Fund, Neubauer Family members Foundation, the Polsky Center, and the Hultquist Faculty Analysis Endowment at Chicago Booth. Other than aforementioned, the authors did not obtain monetary help from any firm or individual for this post or from any firm or individual with a monetary or political interest in this post. The authors are not at the moment an officer, director, or board member of any organization with a monetary or political interest in this post.

By Editor

Leave a Reply