No, it's "how much would Germany spend weeding out waste and fraud compared to how much it would save?" The most effective system for detecting fraud is to investigate a low but random number of cases in depth, and build an algorithm find the most likely cases of waste and fraud and then weed them out. Look at how the IRS operates for a good example of this.
PS: If anything the best number to look for would be the quality of care vs cost.
The fastest way to save money on US heath care would be to ban or more tightly regulate medical advertising in the US. In one day you could save 8+ billion a year in direct costs and far more than that in indirect costs. (If a drug company is spending a 100 million on advertising they think it's driving more than 100 million in extra sales + 20% over head from insurance companies etc.)
Your question is the correct one. That's actually what I was thinking, if not what I said. :)
Concerning quality of care vs cost, that's also irrelevant. I don't want health care, I want health. Health outcomes vs cost are the relevant quantity, but it has not actually been shown that quality of care significantly affects health outcomes.
PS: If anything the best number to look for would be the quality of care vs cost.
The fastest way to save money on US heath care would be to ban or more tightly regulate medical advertising in the US. In one day you could save 8+ billion a year in direct costs and far more than that in indirect costs. (If a drug company is spending a 100 million on advertising they think it's driving more than 100 million in extra sales + 20% over head from insurance companies etc.)