To preface this comment, I’m very, very tired, and I am providing no sources for this as I am very, very tired and just don’t want to go digging.

I remember reading a study or 3 in 2015/16 when Bernie first ran and talked about Medicare for all. The consensus from them seemed to be that a single payer system that was free at the point of use would drastically increase the number of people going to the doctor, for about 5 years. Basically, the idea was that the US system incentivizes us to wait to see a doctor until things get Real Bad, Man™, and if we switched it would take about 5 years per group/stage (Bernie’s plan was to lower the age of Medicare enrollment in stages) before things normalized. People would be jumping on the opportunity to get seen for things that they never would have considered before, and would be basically using the hell out of the new system, and each time the age was lowered it would take about 5 years for that group of people to get through that initial stage of doctor-seeing. But once that was done and things normalized, the stark increase in preventative care would grossly overshadow our current system of basically only treating trauma and chronic conditions. The strain on the medical field as a whole would be significantly lessened over time, because preventative care is often easier and cheaper.

So, again, no studies linked here, but iirc, the consensus was that there would be more people going to the doctor and being seen, especially in the first several years of the new system, but that medical professionals themselves would have less strain (and, my assumption here, less strain means probably less staff needed). I imagine it would change the staffing dynamics, too. We would need more primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, RNs willing/desiring to work in those offices, and probably less need for chronic pain clinics and specialized care units, potentially even things like cancer units and such. If people are seeing their doctors regularly, getting healthier, and generally being less sick, then the need for staffing in situations for people who have allowed things to get Real Bad, Man™ is lessened, and the need for staffing in preventive care is hightened.

Also, just as an aside, I remember watching this french television show once, dubbed, and there being a thing about a stop smoking campaign, with a tax incentive if you quit. Blew my fucking mind back then, but it makes sense. If the government is backing your healthcare, they want you to less costly to that system, and can offer incentives in other systems they also control. Think about it, “join a gym and get a tax credit for half the cost!” Or “lose 30 pounds this year and get an extra 200 back on your income taxes!” I have no idea if that french cigarette thing actually exists in real life, but the idea of it has always stuck with me.