Nationally representative survey reveals employee preferences for health plan benefits and trade-offs, suggesting openness to cost-efficient designs.
Introduction Employer-sponsored health insurance covers over 60% of the U.S. population under age 65 and represents a significant expense for employers, yet employees’ views on benefit design remain understudied. Methods We conducted a nationally representative survey of 1200 U.S. adults using employer-sponsored insurance to assess preferences for benefit trade-offs, including narrower provider networks. The survey used stratified sampling and weighting to ensure demographic representativeness. Results Nearly half (49.9%) preferred retaining the current balance of salary and benefits. However, 45.9% would accept a narrower network in exchange for higher compensation, and 30.9% supported narrow networks if savings were redirected to other benefits. Trade-off preferences varied by age, sex, race, parental status, and political ideology. Most respondents (74.8%) trusted employers to select plans and believed any cost reductions should be returned to employees (72.0%). Many also supported excluding high-cost providers without demonstrated quality advantages. Conclusion The findings suggest that employees are open to cost-efficient plan designs if savings are shared transparently, although other data suggest that few employers are doing this.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaplan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: