He would buy a hospital. Let me explain. The IGM forum polled economists to see if they agreed with this statement:
Long run fiscal sustainability in the US will require some combination of cuts in currently promised Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits and/or tax increases that include higher taxes on households with incomes below $250,000.
Most economists agreed, as would I. However, Cutler disagreed, writing
There are ways of making the health care programs much more efficient, which would obviate the need for tax increases for some time.
He thinks he knows how to compensate health care providers more efficiently. If he were an entrepreneur, he would buy a hospital and prove his theories there. But he is a professor, so testing his theories is an all-or-nothing proposition, and we will have to pay for it.
Heh, he not only disagreed, he was the only one! And with confidence of only 6/10.
But … nine years ago, in a great and very characteristic essay, Hanson made the argument that we could Cut Medicine In Half without being any worse off.
If one believes this, then Cutler’s statement is perfectly sensible, so long as you add the caveat, “… but no private provider can do those things until the law is changed.”
Now, Cutler probably didn’t mean what Hanson argued, but in theory, and ignoring current political constraints (which also constrain the ability to raise taxes or lower services) the answer might be right.
Yes, closing the hospital is not much of a business opportunity.
It’s possible he’s thinking about a theoretical universe with no (or fewer) public-choice / regulation / interference issues. I think we can all come up with lots of ways to make health care more efficient, the trick is doing so in such a way that the masses accept it and the elites get paid for it.
Heck, lopping off the high-expense low-statistical-reward tail of end-of-life care pretty much solves the problem. But death panels didn’t turn out to be popular.