Is your claim that the existence of excellent high-cost treatment options drive down the price of moderate good ones in the present, or that the moderate-cost g

Is your claim that the existence of excellent high-cost treatment options drive down the price of moderate good ones in the present, or that the moderate-cost good ones were at one point paid for by being the excellent high-cost ones? The two claims have very different policy implications. Overall, though, we should be skeptical of device manufacturers' claims that dumping more money into expensive equipment leads to better health. Most money sloshing around in the healthcare system is wasted (see, for instance, the recent counterintuitive Medicaid study results: increased health care spending doesn't necessarily equate to improved outcomes). If we could spend 50% of the money for 80% of the results, that'd be an amazing improvement. And that money could be spent on other quality-of-life improvers, which very well might improve overall population health more than that last 20% coming from complicated medical treatments.