There is a lot of variation in levels of medical treatment and spend across the USA. That variation has been studied by, for example, The Dartmouth Atlas Project. They conclude that more isn't better:
In regions where there are relatively fewer medical resources, patients get less care; however, there is no evidence that these patients are worse off than their counterparts in high-resourced, high-spending regions. Patients do not experience improved survival or better quality of life if they live in regions with more care. In fact, the care they receive appears to be worse.
Is is true that more medical interventions and higher spend don't improve the outcomes for patients?