The basis of his point is good... implementation probably not so much (but that is what the discussion is for).

Hospitals are probably more along the lines of what he was referring to, not the direct physicians, but at the end of the day there is no doubt that they love to push medical tests across the board. Whether it is for pregnant women, a person with diabetes, or a heart patient, they always order a ton of tests. There are 2 reasons for that in my estimation: 1. Worried about being sued and having their malpractice insurance canceled or raised in price. 2. More tests, more revenue for their organization - especially if they have the testing equipment on site.

A great example of this is MRI machines... they are expensive, very large, and take up a lot of room in any office. Yet, they have them everywhere. Why? They'll tell you that they can get results back faster and treat faster. Do we need that? Not generally... send someone down to the hospital if you need the answer back immediately. If you don't, have 1 or 2 outpatient centers on each side of town. I'd argue that a region the size of Dayton (where I live) doesn't truly need more than about 10 of those machines, but between the 2 main hospital groups there are probably 40-50 (I know of 5 in my small suburb alone, and who knows which ones I don't know about). How do they pay for those machines? Test baby, test.

I still think the number 1 issue to lower medical costs is tort reform. After the laws are changed to limit financial compensation for malpractice, we should start looking at specific diseases and pay treatment as a fixed price rather than the current system of test after test after test. Obviously not all illnesses can fall under that category, but I have no doubt many of them could be put under such a plan that would save people, insurance companies, and the government a ton of money a year.