Any evidence for that claim? The issue is not whether there is administrative overhead, but the amount of it. It’s not obvious to me that completely different funding models would incur the exact same amount of overhead on the practitioners.
It does happen in a fashion in the Canadian system where family doctors at least operate as private businesses that bill the gov't, and because of that have to spend quite a bit of time on paperwork which then requires a whole edifice which there has been a lot of complaint about recently.
A search will find you plenty of articles about this.
That and the nature of the relationship introduces conflict. Plus the bulk of provincial governments administrating the thing are ideologically biased against it because they are conservative or neo-liberal in bent, and have been chronically underfunding it for years....
If I only earn when I treat, then I have an incentive to over-diagnose. Insurance thus forces me to document my diagnoses, and I spend much of my time on documentation and appealing denials.
