So in the continuing argument over whether high health spending actually does you any good, there's yet a bit more evidence that it does. This mixes in with some evidence that it doesn't. It's all quite confusing.
Well, superficially so. These are not arguments over whether taking statin drugs to reduce cholesterol is a medically effective therapy. It is. If your doctor tells you to do that, listen to her. The question is whether being treated in an area with high health expenditures -- i.e, where they do more to you -- is better than being treated in an area with low health expenditures.
The reason this is even an issue is that health treatments have a negative impact, too. Surgeries are dangerous, and mistakes, combined with post-operation infections, can kill you. Hospitals transmit diseases and pharmaceuticals can be rough on the system. So the actual argument here is over net effect: Whether the good outweighs the bad. Whether getting everything and the kitchen sink creates improvements at the margins, or whether most of these additional therapies offer little benefit and occasional harm.
