Assuming hospitals have a 95% survival rate of patients (customers), how would you feel if food suppliers held themselves to the same standards?
Sadly (how would you feel if), hospitals and insurance companies base their costs on the above?
Not sure where you're pulling this idea from and its poorly held together but I will run with it. All that will happen is that insurance companies would do everything they could to select the healthies patients. Also you can twist numbers to reflect whatever you want. If a patient leaves the hospital and dies in hospice care 3 days later, he technically survived.
The best way to track hospital performance I would say is by chart reviewing 1 or 2 years out to see incidences of documented errors, questionable or superfluous medical practices/decisions/use of equipment (they say roughly 10-20 percent of bypass surgeries in this country are done superfluously for example) compared to similar hospitals in the region, and by frequency of adherence to nationally accepted guidelines for treatments and preventions of disease (dvt prophylaxis, gi prophylaxis, etc etc).
For example, its been well publicized that 7 percent of people quit smoking at the first request of their doctors, yet a staggering number of smokers report never having a discussion about smoking cessation with their physicians. Track stuff like that that rather than stuff that is already for the most part pre-determined (like survival from a gunshot wound to the head)