Agree. This is a pretty terrible article. Random "facts" that quote big revenue numbers tell you almost nothing. Vertical integration tells you nothing. It'

Agree. This is a pretty terrible article. Random "facts" that quote big revenue numbers tell you almost nothing. Vertical integration tells you nothing. It's a relatively old analysis (2009), but McKinsey did some research that I think highlights some pretty important differences in the US healthcare system that actually points to where the money is going. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Healthcare%20Systems%20and%20Services/Health%20International/HI08_American_health.ashx https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_serv... If you look at Exhibit 2, page 4, they basically compare US spending, as a percentage of GDP, and breaks down the difference between price and volume. The result are some very interesting facts that run counter to common belief: - health administration and insurance is a tiny contribution to high costs, accounting for about 5% of excess spending - spending on pharmaceuticals and "non-durable" (supplies) is pretty small and only contributes to 5% of excess spending - in-patient care (where the patient stays in the hospital overnight) spending is only 10% higher than the OECD average relative to GDP - 68% of the higher spending is out-patient care (where the patient doesn't stay in the hospital overnight); price is a factor here, but in reality, Americans get way more out-patient procedures than other countries