In the political debate, even in academia, the concepts of "profitability" or "efficiency" are thrown around very robustly and freely with no regard for the players themselves. Economically speaking there can be no efficiency without a definition of targets in terms of outcomes and their level of quality. If even the government's Council of Economic Experts itself finds in its assessment of hospital funding that the "reform's target parameters - improving the profitability of service provision - have developed positively", but adds that "whether this also applies to the quality of services provided or to the realisation of healthcare outcomes remains to be seen due to the lack of evidence" [21], this indicates a one-sided and problematic curtailment of the concept even by highly competent bodies. Economic control of new forms of healthcare by means of prices and fees for clearly defined services is a complex problem that has not been dealt with adequately. All pricing is based on classification models aimed at ensuring cost and benefit clusters that are as homogeneous as possible. Classification models in healthcare as a basis for price control targets need constant adjusting to ensure accuracy of mapping and appropriateness to performance. A prerequisite for the methodology behind price control models of this kind is presupposing a responsible, rule-bound and criteria-based handling of "variance" and "coincidence" by means of risk-adjusted quality and price systems. They will define the character of a wide range of steering tools and have an effect that goes beyond the narrow formal confines of the sector. That is why the regulatory framework will need first and foremost to define a qualitative framework for the political "security infrastructure" by means of deregulated economic processes in which price control becomes accountable and is justified in terms of content.