Of these, only "outcomes" could reasonably be described by "quality," the rest are a further goalpost pushing. And the US ranks highly on those, (e.g. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-su...). The only way to get US outcomes to look bad is to compare things that also include non-health-care inputs, like mortality, which is like comparing a sports medicine clinic to an ER room and concluding the ER room loses more patients.
I don’t know where you could possibly be getting your information from but here is some reading for you.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
It's funny, this entire chain started because someone claimed the US spent less than all those other countries and I corrected them.
> has lower life expectancy, infant mortality, childbirth safety
You completely misread my post, because I specifically addressed this point. The reason you look at treatments of specific diseases to judge quality of health care rather than something like life expectancy is that life expectancy depends more on things outside the health care system's control than in it. If you get shot or die in a car accident, that wasn't the doctor's fault, a population with much higher rates of obesity will die at a faster clip than one without, even with the exact same care, etc.