Thank you for pointing this out "And yes, while I have experienced the Taiwanese health care system as excellent, the „benchmark“ you quoted is an administrative one, not based on actual health outcomes or „bang for buck“ for the payee. Else systems with superb outcomes and cost:benefit ratios (eg Norway, Japan) would have been in the top 5 (as they are in most outcome based benchmarks, eg by the WHO). Patients might prioritise speedy attention and being pampered, but what ultimately counts is how many quality years of live can be prevented from being lost for the most patients in a population at long term sustainable cost / resource use."

I agree that quality of life should be a higher priority than speed when churning through patients.