What the new analysis claims

A Yale-led research team has estimated that replacing the current US health-insurance system with a single-payer universal programme modelled on Medicare for All could reduce national health expenditure by $1.041 trillion a year and prevent more than 114,000 deaths annually.

The estimate comes from a preprint by Abhishek Pandey, Chad R. Wells, Yang Ye, Meagan Fitzpatrick and Alison P. Galvani. It updates earlier work by some of the same researchers, using more recent national spending and insurance-coverage data. The paper has been posted on medRxiv, meaning it is publicly available before peer review; it should therefore be read as a policy projection rather than a settled scientific finding.

The analysis envisages a national public insurer covering the population for medically necessary care, rather than a modest expansion of existing Medicare. Such a change would not mean that total medical care becomes free to provide. Instead, it would alter who pays, how providers are paid and how prices are set.

Where the projected savings come from

The authors attribute the largest potential savings to structural changes that a single national payer could make. These include lower administrative costs, reduced drug prices, lower spending associated with fraudulent billing, and less reliance on emergency and inpatient treatment when people can receive care earlier.

Administrative simplification is central to the argument. The US system combines employer insurance, individual-market plans, Medicare, Medicaid and other public programmes, each with different benefit rules, billing procedures, networks and prior-authorisation processes. A single payer could reduce some of the duplication involved in insurance administration and billing.

The study also assumes that broader purchasing power would allow the government to bring pharmaceutical prices closer to levels paid in comparable countries. It further applies Medicare-style payment rates more widely across the health system. Both assumptions produce savings on paper, but both would require difficult negotiations and would materially affect hospitals, drug manufacturers, insurers and clinical practices.

Those savings are partly offset by new spending. Universal coverage would pay for care currently left unpaid, reduce patients’ out-of-pocket liabilities and increase use of health services among people who are uninsured or inadequately insured. The authors’ conclusion is that the lower prices and streamlined financing would outweigh those added costs.

Why the mortality estimate is not a direct count

The projected 114,000 fewer deaths is a modelled estimate of preventable mortality, not an observed outcome from a nationwide policy trial. The calculation links expanded insurance and better access to timely care with lower mortality, while also incorporating the reversal of recent coverage losses discussed by the authors.

The underlying logic is well established: lacking insurance or facing high costs can delay preventive care, diagnosis, prescription use and treatment for chronic conditions. But translating that relationship into one national annual total requires assumptions about how quickly people gain access, whether enough clinicians and facilities are available, and how care quality changes during the transition.

That distinction matters. A universal programme could increase financial access, yet patients may still encounter provider shortages, long travel distances or delays for certain services. Conversely, the potential health gains might be larger in communities where cost barriers currently cause the most severe disruptions in care. The headline figure should therefore be treated as an estimate within a particular scenario, rather than a precise prediction.

National spending and federal spending are different measures

The paper’s $1 trillion figure concerns national health expenditure: the combined spending of households, employers, insurers and governments. It does not mean that the federal government would spend $1 trillion less.

A single-payer plan would shift a large share of payments now made through premiums, employer contributions, state programmes and out-of-pocket bills onto the federal budget. Previous modelling by the Urban Institute and Commonwealth Fund has similarly stressed that national costs can fall even while federal expenditure rises sharply, because the government would assume responsibility for payments currently made elsewhere.

This is the central distributional question in the Medicare for All debate. A household might no longer pay premiums or deductibles but could pay more in taxes. Employers could be relieved of insurance costs but face new payroll or other levies. Whether a particular person or business comes out ahead depends on the financing design, income, existing health benefits and medical needs.

The scale of the debate reflects the scale of the existing system. Official federal data show US health spending reached $5.3 trillion in 2024, or $15,474 per person. A projected reduction of roughly $1 trillion would be substantial, but it would still leave the country spending more than $4 trillion annually under the assumptions used in the preprint.

A result that depends on implementation

The new study reinforces a long-running argument that the United States could cover everyone while spending less overall by consolidating financing and using stronger public purchasing power. Earlier peer-reviewed work by members of the Yale team estimated smaller, though still substantial, annual savings and mortality reductions under a single-payer model.

Other analyses have reached less favourable conclusions on total spending, particularly when they assume more generous benefits, higher provider payments, weaker cost controls or faster growth in service use. The disagreement is not simply about arithmetic. It concerns choices that legislation would have to make: benefit coverage, provider reimbursement, drug-price negotiations, taxes, long-term care, the role of private insurance and the pace of transition.

The preprint is consequently most useful as a detailed statement of one possible policy pathway. Its figures make clear why advocates focus on administrative fragmentation and prices, while its assumptions show why critics demand credible plans for financing, workforce capacity and provider stability.

The evidence supports the broader conclusion that coverage and payment reform can reshape both access and spending. It does not, on its own, establish that the United States would automatically save exactly $1.041 trillion or avert exactly 114,000 deaths in every year after adopting Medicare for All. Those outcomes would depend on the final law and, above all, on how effectively it was implemented.

Sources