Universal HealthcareBy NextBestFit

Launch the displaced-worker program

Month 6 onward; benefits through Year 6 · Department of Labor; state workforce boardsDiscuss this step

Pros & cons of this step

Pros
  • +Turns an accepted cost (job loss) into a managed transition.
  • +Many displaced workers have health-system skills that are in shortage elsewhere.
Cons
  • −Wage losses for many displaced workers will be permanent despite the program Displaced-worker research finds earnings 10–20% lower for years.
  • −Concentrated local economic shocks in a handful of cities.
  • Generous benefits cost more but reduce political opposition and hardship.
medium confidence

Jobs and local economies

About 975k jobs are displaced in insurance, billing, brokerage, and PBMs; far more clinical jobs are demanded. Net employment rises, but the people and places differ.

Today
Health administration employs a large workforce whose jobs exist because of payer complexity.
Under the plan
Administrative jobs disappear; clinical, home-care, and UHA jobs grow.
Who gains
  • Clinical and direct-care workers
  • Workers freed from job lock
Who loses
  • Insurance and billing workers
  • Insurer-headquarters cities

Magnitude: See the workforce page for the full table and transition-program cost.

Mitigations
  • Worker transition program
  • Hiring preference at UHA
  • Regional adjustment grants
Risk that remains: Displaced workers' earnings often stay lower for years.

Jobs affected by this step

Trade-off behind each cost item

Trade-off behind each system change