Absolutely, and that's one of the rationales for incentive changes enacted under ACA. Before ACA, health systems were incentivized fee-for-service, not outcomes

Absolutely, and that's one of the rationales for incentive changes enacted under ACA. Before ACA, health systems were incentivized fee-for-service, not outcomes based. Under ACA we shifted to try to offer Americans options for preventative care, to avoid the extreme costs of emergency services. According to the same site[1] cost growth has come down as more people take advantage of their coverage. 1. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-start https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... Things like cost controls and universal coverage are synergistic. People with coverage will seek earlier, cheaper remedies over waiting to the last minute expensive emergency care. Republicans and conservative Democrats have allied to sabotage the ability for universal service to control cost. From the abandonment of the Public Option in the ACA marketplace, to disallowing Medicare Part D from negotiating with drug manufacturers for lower prices. We've been effectively hamstrung, but that means there's plenty of low-hanging fruit.