I’d certainly be happy to be wrong in this instance, but doesn’t this mean that we’re relying on the goodwill of the (profit-motivated) insurance industry to make patient-oriented outcomes happen? Without some outside pressure on them, there will be always be someone providing useless cut-rate insurance to suckers (incidentally raising riskier patient’s premiums) or tying patients up in bureaucratic hell (as has been described upthread by @mrcjhicks and @ShivaX and others). Not to mention all the people that the industry simply won’t cover at all due to them being too poor or having too many health issues to be profitable. By the time you put in regulations to force the insurance industry to do all those things (and I’m sure there’s even more I’m not mentioning), there’s very little in the way of “free market” left in it. So why bother with all the overhead of a separate insurance industry at all? A single payer system will assuredly not be perfect or solve all these problems, but it has got to be much simpler and efficient.
OK, now, having said all that, it’s probably not politically feasible to do single payer without a political Tunguska event. So we may well be stuck with the inefficiency of a private insurance industry, in which case what @Nesrie has described about comprehensive care becoming important to them is a promising step. I’d like to see amendments to the ACA that make that kind of approach mandatory, which I see as the next evolution of the essential benefits clause.