The effectiveness turns it good or bad. Our spending is *only* bad if most of it is wasteful (which it is - I do support an overhaul of the system) - but that doesn't mean that another country is automatically more efficient just because they spend *less* - so GDP tells how much a country spends, but gives no consideration to effectiveness - maybe other countries need to spend MORE in order for their system and efforts to be more effective? Maybe France spends too much and is ineffective, as well - thus could also use a restructuring? (just an example - no fact or reasoning behind it!)
More important numbers to focus on when comparing effectiveness/cost to other countries would be to factor things separately and compare: recovery time for illnesses and diseases, success rate, cost (calculated for inflation and exchange rates) for itemized things: medications, certain treatments, supplies (everything from bandages to stethoscopes and scalpals) - as well as people's pay (receptionists, etc), factoring in the cost for water, electricity, cleaning supplies (all these things that hospitals and private practices have to cover) - and so on, so forth.
Looking at *the* GDP as a percentage of overall healthcare costs is just *one* little thing - and it's the least important thing if you don't have all tehse other numbers to consider and compare it with and factor into it.
(I'll do some research and write up something to explain my point . . . I'll be back in a bit)