Amy Finkelstein, Casey McQuillan, Owen Zidar, Eric Zwick
{"title":"The Health Wedge and Labor Market Inequality","authors":"Amy Finkelstein, Casey McQuillan, Owen Zidar, Eric Zwick","doi":"10.1353/eca.2023.a919363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over half of the US population receives health insurance through an employer with premium contributions creating a flat \"head tax\" per worker, independent of their earnings. This paper develops and calibrates a stylized model of the labor market to explore how this uniquely American approach to financing health insurance contributes to labor market inequality. We consider a partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which employer-provided health insurance is instead financed by a statutory payroll tax on firms. We find that, under this counterfactual financing, in 2019 the college wage premium would have been 11 percent lower, noncollege annual earnings would have been $1,700 (3 percent) higher, and noncollege employment would have been nearly 500,000 higher. These calibrated labor market effects of switching from head tax to payroll tax financing are in the same ballpark as estimates of the impact of other leading drivers of labor market inequality, including changes in outsourcing, robot adoption, rising trade, unionization, and the real minimum wage. We also consider a separate partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which the current head tax financing is maintained, but 2019 US health care spending as a share of GDP is reduced to the Canadian share; here, we estimate that the 2019 college wage premium would have been 5 percent lower and noncollege annual earnings would have been 5 percent higher. These findings suggest that health care costs and the financing of health insurance warrant greater attention in both public policy and research on US labor market inequality.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":51405,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Economic Activity","volume":"224 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brookings Papers on Economic Activity","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2023.a919363","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over half of the US population receives health insurance through an employer with premium contributions creating a flat "head tax" per worker, independent of their earnings. This paper develops and calibrates a stylized model of the labor market to explore how this uniquely American approach to financing health insurance contributes to labor market inequality. We consider a partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which employer-provided health insurance is instead financed by a statutory payroll tax on firms. We find that, under this counterfactual financing, in 2019 the college wage premium would have been 11 percent lower, noncollege annual earnings would have been $1,700 (3 percent) higher, and noncollege employment would have been nearly 500,000 higher. These calibrated labor market effects of switching from head tax to payroll tax financing are in the same ballpark as estimates of the impact of other leading drivers of labor market inequality, including changes in outsourcing, robot adoption, rising trade, unionization, and the real minimum wage. We also consider a separate partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which the current head tax financing is maintained, but 2019 US health care spending as a share of GDP is reduced to the Canadian share; here, we estimate that the 2019 college wage premium would have been 5 percent lower and noncollege annual earnings would have been 5 percent higher. These findings suggest that health care costs and the financing of health insurance warrant greater attention in both public policy and research on US labor market inequality.
Renske Oegema, Tahsin Stefan Barakat, Martina Wilke, Katrien Stouffs, Dina Amrom, Eleonora Aronica, Nadia Bahi-Buisson, Valerio Conti, Andrew E. Fry, Tobias Geis, David Gomez Andres, Elena Parrini, Ivana Pogledic, Edith Said, Doriette Soler, Luis M. Valor, Maha S. Zaki, Ghayda Mirzaa, William B. Dobyns, Orly Reiner, Renzo Guerrini, Daniela T. Pilz, Ute Hehr, Richard J. Leventer, Anna C. Jansen, Grazia M. S. Mancini, Nataliya Di Donato
期刊介绍:
The Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA) is a semi-annual academic conference and journal that pairs rigorous research with real-time policy analysis to address the most urgent economic challenges of the day. Working drafts of the papers are presented and discussed at conferences typically held twice each year, and the final versions of the papers and comments along with summaries of the general discussions are published in the journal several months later. The views expressed by the authors, discussants and conference participants in BPEA are strictly those of the authors, discussants and conference participants, and not of the Brookings Institution. As an independent think tank, the Brookings Institution does not take institutional positions on any issue.