That's actually a little bit surprising to me. I have some family friends who are doctors (one's a dermatologist, the other an internist). They each pay somewhere around $50k per year in malpractice insurance premiums. Now sure, in the grand scheme of things, the 50k extra your doctor demands is likely not transformative for health care costs, but I also wouldn't imagine it is nothing.
In a transparent market, the theory of 'reduce costs' -> 'cheaper healthcare' might hold, but the healthcare market is anything but transparent. If my doctor can save money on something, he's not going to pass in on to me in the form of lower costs. Why would he? I don't pay my doctor! Three months after I visit him, I get a bill from my insurer for some co-pay that's a tiny fraction of what the doctor billed them.
I'm assuming the savings were happily eaten by doctors' wages/hospital shareholders/admins/insurers. Meanwhile, the patients got to deal with gems like this[1] doctor.
Healthcare seems to be much like rent in a supply-constrained environment, in that it is doing its best to siphon up all surplus funds sloshing around the economy.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/dr-death-christopher-dunt... - the hospitals didn't care that he was butchering his patients, because they get money per surgery performed, not per successful surgery performed. The patients had no recourse, thanks to tort reform. The doctor himself didn't care. He shuffled around from hospital to hospital (who welcomed a rainmaker that brings more business in with open arms), maiming people, until his negligence reached criminal levels.
