I believe it is one of the more rational arguments for health reform in the US that America spends disproportionate share of GDP on health compared to say, the UK, with its predominantly public provision. In Britain, though, GPs are also tempted to overprescribe by drug companies.
Also, this nationalised health service can also tend to overprescribe. There is quite a fashion here for screening programmes which create their own momentum. There is an argument that screening programmes create more problems than they solve. My mother, for example was caught by a screening programme for cervical cancer, given treatment that she did not need, developed complications, and, though I could never know that it was the cause, died.
The NHS runs all kinds of programmes of a regulatory kind. New mothers are monitored by health visitors (whose brief is to identify problem mothers). A friend of mine who is a psychotherapist has been swept up in an extensive programme of therapeutic care, whose goal is popularly described as the 'happiness agenda'. The practise she coordinates is groaning under the demand (which appears to be limitless).
The NHS is europe's biggest employer, though I belive that Britain spends about half what the US spends on health.