The free market was supposed to fix this shit:
>When Jeffrey Kivi's rheumatologist changed affiliations from one hospital in New York City to another, less than 20 blocks uptown, the price his insurer paid for the outpatient infusion he got about every 6 weeks to control his arthritis jumped from $19,000 to over $100,000. Same drug; same dose -- though, Kivi noted, the pricier infusion room had free cookies, Wi-Fi and bottled water.
>According to the rules of economics, the prices of innovative, breakthrough medical offerings should go down as they become more common. Competition should reduce prices as more manufacturers enter the field allowing purchaser-prescribers to choose from alternatives.
>The pricing of pharmaceuticals and treatments in the United States often does exactly the opposite. The United States suffers from a bizarre phenomenon economists call "sticky pricing," where prices of competing medical services simply rise in tandem.
So one Hospital decides to double the price of a procedure. The Hospital across town decides to do the same, plus an extra 25% more because they have expensive art in the waiting room to justify the higher cost of healthcare. Consumers often don't get to pick their hospital (They only chose their doctor, and their doctor sends them for testing/procedures at a facility of the doctors choosing).
Why do insurance companies let the hospitals do this? They are the ones stuck paying the bill, and they in turn raise premiums to cover this shit.