What would be even more informative is (1) what does the hospital/doctors actually receive from the insurance company (2) what would the hospital/doctors get if

What would be even more informative is (1) what does the hospital/doctors actually receive from the insurance company (2) what would the hospital/doctors get if the parents had zero insurance (3) what would a hospital in each of the 99%+ other countries' hospital/doctors with a national system get for the same issue and timeframe. That's essentially the argument of the US getting some kind of single payer system that works (Medicare atm is only semi-working as it doesn't completely function due to political interference and bureaucratic inertia). In the US the system is designed to ensure profits are higher than the cost of treating patients who have no insurance, and patients on Medicare/Medicaid/VA where negotiated pricing is limiting to profits. So the major task for healthcare companies is to do everything to maximize the profits and minimize costs that don't support higher profits, and for the insurance companies to collect more from companies and individuals to cover the healthcare companies need for profits, while maximizing their profits as well. While healthcare in other countries may also wish to keep costs under control, if there is no profit requirement, they have much more flexibility. Of course there is no universal solution to healthcare, but the incentive outside the US is different as long as profit is not the only thing that matters.