I think you're misinterpreting what WSJ wrote.
The "paid in full" in this context means wages are adjusted up. (I'm not saying that in real life, the businesses will do this. I'm just emphasizing what "paid in full" means mathematically as WSJ wrote it.) If you read the later paragraph[1], you'll see that they mean for the total monetary compensation to be adjusted up (via the dollar contribution.)
This is in contrast to the current situation we have. If we use WSJ's phrasing, ever since WW2 wage controls, we've been "paid partially" in dollars.
today: compensation "paid partially in dollars" + employer insurance
possible future: compensation "paid in full as dollars" (DIY insurance)
Again, the above is just the interpretation of the text.
As to whether or not things will play out that way, that's more of speculation about economics and politics. The journalist and we readers can't predict the future and know for sure if businesses will use it as an opportunity to "trick" employees by never adjusting wages or actually readjust wages to stay competitive in recruiting.
In my opinion, a possible future includes ABC Inc offering $50k-with-employer-insurance and XYZ Inc offering $60k-with-DIY-insurance.
[1]from the article: ... employers consider whether the “best” option is simply to give employees a certain “defined contribution” dollar amount toward their monthly health insurance, ...
I'm curious if the majority frame it that way. To me, employers never really paid for benefits. It was the employees wages that was converted into health insurance as a loophole to circumvent WWII wage controls.
Using this "employee's-total-compensation" frame of reference, the real value add from the employer was having a Human Resources staff handling the administrative headaches of benefit plans. The "employer's health insurance" has always been the "employee's money" that was preallocated.
Today, employers providing health insurance is a voluntary arrangement. Employers do it to stay competitive in attracting job applicants. If employers are voluntarily providing insurance, and if the employer insurance component goes away, it seems logical that they will also voluntarily adjust wages offered in the marketplace for employees-DIY-insurance (because WWII wage controls are no longer preventing it.)
As an analogy, when Amazon or other retailer says they offer "free shipping", does that really mean they pay shipping? Isn't it really us, the customers that pay that free shipping? Therefore, "free shipping" is just a synonym for "the shipping cost you paid is baked into the price and through Orwellian doublespeak, we restate it back to you as free shipping."
Isn't "free shipping" frame-of-references similar to "employer provided insurance"?