Medicare for All would replace nearly every private health plan in the United States, Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medigap, ACA marketplace coverage, and most employer insurance, with a single federal plan covering hospital care, physician visits, prescription drugs, dental, vision, hearing, and long-term care at no cost to patients. Whether that plan would cost the country more or less money depends entirely on which of five major 2026 studies you believe, and what each one is actually measuring.
Five major 2026 studies anchor the numbers in this guide: the leading cost and savings estimates, why they differ by tens of trillions of dollars, what the current bill (H.R. 3069 / S. 1506) would mean for your own premiums and taxes, and what coverage options exist right now while the legislation sits in committee. For today's actual Medicare costs, see does Medicare cover dental and ACA marketplace subsidy eligibility.
Coverage Breakdown
| Estimate Source | Time Frame | What It Found | Overall Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 2020 working paper | By 2030 (low-payment, low-cost-sharing option) | National health spending falls by $650 billion; federal budget spending rises $1.5 trillion to $3.0 trillion a year | Mixed: cheaper overall, costlier for the federal government |
| Yale School of Public Health, 2026 preprint | Annual, ongoing | $1.04 trillion in national savings a year; 114,174 fewer deaths a year | Shows savings |
| American Action Forum (AAF), 2026 analysis | 2027 to 2036 (10-year window) | $47.4 trillion net new federal cost absent new revenue | Shows added federal cost |
| Mercatus Center (Blahous), 2018 study | 2022 to 2031 (10-year window) | $32.6 trillion in new federal spending, assuming Medicare-level provider payment rates | Shows added federal cost |
| Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), UMass Amherst, 2018 study | 10-year window (2018 study) | About $5.1 trillion in net societal savings from lower administrative costs and negotiated drug prices | Shows savings |
Estimates differ mainly because they measure different things: federal budget cost (money the U.S. Treasury spends) versus total national health expenditure (money everyone in the country spends on healthcare combined), and because they assume different provider payment rates and administrative savings. None of these figures is an official CBO score of the 2025 Medicare for All Act; Congress has not requested one as of 2026.
Source: CBO Working Paper 2020-08, Yale School of Public Health 2026 preprint, American Action Forum 2026, Mercatus Center 2018, PERI UMass Amherst 2018
Direct Answer: Would Medicare for All Save Money or Cost More?
It depends on the estimate and what it measures. The Congressional Budget Office found in 2020 that a plan resembling today's Medicare for All Act could cut national health spending by $650 billion by 2030. A 2026 Yale School of Public Health preprint projects $1.04 trillion in yearly savings, while a 2026 American Action Forum analysis instead projects a $47.4 trillion net federal cost from 2027 to 2036.
What Medicare for All Would Actually Change
Medicare for All, as written in the 2025 bill (H.R. 3069 in the House, S. 1506 in the Senate), would fold Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medigap, ACA marketplace plans, employer-sponsored insurance, and most of Medicaid into one federal program. Everyone legally present in the United States would be automatically enrolled, with no premiums, no deductibles, and no copays for covered services. The current split between Medicare Part A (hospital), Medicare Part B (physician and outpatient), and Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) would disappear into a single comprehensive benefit that also adds dental, vision, hearing, and long-term care, benefits Original Medicare does not fully cover today.
Private insurance would not simply shrink, it would be largely prohibited from duplicating the public plan's benefits. Medicare Advantage plans, which about half of Medicare's 68 million beneficiaries currently choose for lower out-of-pocket costs, would be phased out. Standalone Medigap policies, which 2026 Medicare beneficiaries buy to cover Original Medicare's cost-sharing, would no longer have a purpose because cost-sharing would not exist. ACA-compliant marketplace plans, built around the ACA's 10 essential health benefits and preexisting-condition protections, would also be replaced, since Medicare for All would guarantee those same protections directly through the federal plan.
Why the Estimates Differ So Much
The single biggest reason estimates range from $650 billion in annual savings to $47.4 trillion in added federal cost over 10 years is what each study counts. Federal budget cost measures only the new checks the U.S. Treasury would have to write; it goes up sharply under Medicare for All because employer premiums, individual premiums, and out-of-pocket costs that used to flow through private companies would instead flow through the government. Total national health expenditure measures every dollar spent on healthcare no matter who pays it, and several studies, including the Congressional Budget Office's 2020 low-cost option and the 2026 Yale School of Public Health preprint, find that number could fall because of lower administrative overhead and Medicare-level provider payment rates.
The second big driver is the assumed payment rate to doctors and hospitals. Medicare currently pays providers roughly 60% to 80% of what private insurance pays for the same service, according to CBO's 2020 working paper. Estimates that assume all providers get paid at Medicare rates (like the Mercatus Center's 2018 projection of $32.6 trillion in new federal spending over 2022 to 2031) produce lower total costs than estimates that assume providers would need higher payment rates to keep participating, or that patients would use significantly more care once cost-sharing disappears.
What Medicare for All Would Cost You Personally
For an individual family, the math looks different from the federal budget math. The 2025 KFF Employer Health Benefits Survey found the average family premium for employer coverage reached $26,993 in 2025, with workers paying $6,850 of that directly out of their paychecks, on top of deductibles and copays. Under most Medicare for All proposals, that family would pay $0 in premiums, deductibles, or copays for covered care, but would instead pay higher payroll and income taxes under the financing framework Senator Sanders has proposed, which includes a 4% income-based premium on households earning over $29,935 and new taxes on investment income and large employers.
Whether a given household comes out ahead depends entirely on its current insurance costs and income. A family already paying $6,850 a year toward premiums plus thousands more in deductibles and copays could plausibly pay less under a payroll-tax-funded system with no cost-sharing. A high earner with employer coverage and low medical use could pay more in new taxes than they currently pay in premiums. No official CBO score of the 2025 Medicare for All Act's tax provisions exists as of 2026, so household-level comparisons remain estimates from advocacy groups on both sides.
