>Nope, none of the stuff you mentioned falls under COGS.
Ok, then please define what you mean by COGs.
>This is the classic "we'll lose money per customer, but make it up in volume" argument.
You misunderstand the argument. Since I wasn't clear, these two articles highlight the main points:
https://www.kff.org/report-section/a-primer-on-medicare-how-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-pri...
Also with respect to these and the efficiency argument, please see:
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/hospitals-medic...
I never said all do - I said that in aggregate, Medicare reimbursements are 7% less than COGS. "Efficiency" doesn't really enter the picture, because COGS isn't driven by efficiency (ie, overhead); it's driven by upstream costs.
> So logically it is better to employ more residents if you have sufficient patient load since it would reduce COGs.
Nope, none of the stuff you mentioned falls under COGS.
> One could argue that medicaid and medicare patients are sicker and there are more of them than most so they provide a larger revenue stream than private insurance covered patients (and they also require more procedures)
This is the classic "we'll lose money per customer, but make it up in volume" argument.