But this is the problem with capitalism and health care, the providers just stop if there's not enough money in it for them.
Is this supposed to be a flaw?
If the cost of a lab is $500/patient then the patient (or their insurance) pays the $500 and the lab exists. If the cost of the lab is $50,000,000/patient, the lab probably shouldn't be funded, because its cost/benefit ratio is very bad and the same money could have saved more lives by putting it somewhere else.
What would you do in the alternative? Have the government provide unlimited funding for things that cost more than they're worth?
Suppose we have a program which is saving lives for $50M each. There are other ways to spend the money that would save lives for $10,000 each. If we have $50M, should we save one life or 5000? This is not an academic trade off, it's what actually happens whenever the government allocates money to something with poor cost/benefit because there actually are ways to save lives or do other highly valuable things for even less than that amount of money and we don't have unlimited resources.