This is not well-known but the vast majority of hospital visits are non-emergency.

People used to have choice but now due to 1950s tax code, your employer chooses a health conglomerate which chooses an insurance company which influences the billing allowances which influences the hospital profitability which is now so complicated that often only PE firms are willing to take the investment risk.

The incentives and market feedback is now so distorted that there is little to no signal. Healthcare in the US is often used as an example of failed free markets, but it is very far from a free market.

It's still one of the most deregulated, most bloated and inefficient systems in the whole world, delivering the worst health outcomes across the G7-States. Everywhere else in the world tight-controlled and regulated Healthcaresystems deliver far better quality. It's one of the cases where you need a regulated market, not a free one

Does it actually provide worse health outcomes?

American lifestyles especially in certain states are generally not conducive to good outcomes but the US healthcare system itself is still generally world-renowned for cutting edge procedures.

Analyzing from a cost POV it's quite bad, but in many ways healthcare is the ultimate marginal good so people are willing to spend what they have.

On a population level it does. Higher children mortality than most developing countries and worst life expectancy in G7 can't only be contributed to bad lifestyle. It's also a huge part of not being able to access care, and that's not the cutting edge care, it's cheap basic care