Yes, assuming the parliament can be relied upon In setting the ‘terms of reference’.
There is the obvious - size of the industry and profits derived. Does it deliver value and efficiency in a timely manner? What is the balance between commercial profit driven outcomes and not for profit universal quality of life outcomes?
There is also the medical professionals industry. The more we train and employ the more and better the healthy services and outcomes. The greater the rate of intake and the greater the level of skill the faster the growth rate in professional incomes needed. Hence the costs of these services and the technology needed for support is growing faster than our population and CPI.
How do you decouple what many see as also vested interests in better health outcomes from financial gain?
Is it true you cannot put a cost on a life or health, hence expenditure on health related outcomes must be unlimited? Or do you put a reasonable value on what the community should bare for every extra day of good health and life? What value do you put on keeping some one breathing vs the choice to move on with dignity?
There are many much more complex issues subjective, religious and phylisolphiical related to health care when compared to the BRC.
There have been numerous reports governement and private over my lifetime. Other than the universal cover alternative to fee public hospital services (in Qld anyway) the most significant change has been the rate of growth in costs ahead of inflation. That most of us can now live longer may be more to do with life style and nutrition as much as it is to do with modern cheap drugs. For some medical advances have been life saving, often at great expense which we have all chosen to share.