If your startup was venture-backed, wouldn't the risk lie on the VCs instead of you?
When you run into a founder or work for one in the US, realize the absolute big risk they are taking. People in Sweden have a safety net to catch them. The result is people are more willing to take risks to start something and you also see more innovative startups that would otherwise be considered high risk in the US by founders.
Um, yourself? I have an ACA plan. It handles all the catastrophic stuff, and has a very reasonable deductible. It costs me ~$360/mo. Certainly this is a different ball of wax with a family (figure more around $1100-1400/mo for a reasonable plan) that has dependents.
In my case I quit working eons ago. I bought health insurance via a state marketplace (RomneyCare). My total costs (business insurance, legal, marketing) were less than $10K. I was profitable at the end of month two. At the end of year one, even with expenses I was making 70% more than I could as an employee in most companies in Boston (and around what I could theoretically get at Google, if they would even give me the time of day). It's been 5 years, and I still question why I didn't do it earlier. Worst case I had two years of savings in the bank from average-paying software jobs.
You don't have to do crazy things that require millions of dollars. I'm working on a "big thing" (to me) now that will require ~3000 hours of development time to launch, but I'm doing it all myself, and my costs are $10-15K and learning some new skills. Though the very real potential is for it to easily replace business one, and put my income well above what even the Valley could ever pay me. I wouldn't of done that quitting a job though -- that's something I would build on the side and launch while still employed, and only quit when it's clear the revenue will cover expenses.
As a student I would would have 10000 SEK / month ($1200), in grant and student loan. [1] You would expect to need nearly all of that in any of the town Universities [2] leaving nothing for healthcare. But in Sweden healthcare is nearly free (maxed at $120 for a 12 month period).
[1] http://www.csn.se/lattlast/studiestod/studiemedel/hur-mycket...
[2] https://www.kth.se/blogs/abhineet/2016/05/livingexpense/
[3] https://www.1177.se/Stockholm/Regler-och-rattigheter/Patient...
Because of this, companies needed to find additional benefits, non-monetary, to give to employees, both to keep and attract employees. So, they started to offer medical insurance.
Well, it stuck and medical insurance has been tied to employment ever since. But, that incentive has long-since been removed from the books and employers can now happily pay as much as they can afford.
As for other incentives, I don't know of any incentives offered to employers that offer insurance, at least until recently. The current incentive is a fine, if they are meet the criteria and don't offer insurance.
Other than that, a perverse incentive that does exactly opposite of what you're asking, there is nothing else. I suppose you could be referring to the employer not being taxed on money spent on insuring their employes, but taxes are based on profits and the personnel expenses are not on that side of the ledger. There's no incentive, the money just isn't taxed because we tax profit, not revenue.
Savings are finite, sadly.