Evasion of cost controls. Even though government can still borrow money at a lower cost than the private sector, all parties may find it expedient to replace capital costs by operating costs. Even though allowing the private sector to build a facility for which it will be repaid from publicly funded operating grants is likely to be more expensive in the long run, the full costs will not appear on a government balance sheet. To the extent that government is short-sighted, starves access to capital, or refuses to fund technological improvements, there will be incentives to get things done by stepping around government and moving to private partners. Similarly, some procedures, although highly beneficial, have high marginal costs.
Implants are a notable example.
To the extent that funding cutbacks lead to arbitrary limitations on how many such procedures will be performed, the demand will be felt in a private tier. The case can, and should, be made that allocation formulae should be modified to ensure that the publicly funded system is continuing to meet genuine needs in a timely manner, but this may be easier said than done. In the absence of clearly defined outcomes, it is likely that for-profits will devote less money to activities which, although important, are not required of them. But most businesses only wish to serve profitable markets. Now extrapolate this to having an unusual, or expensive to treat, condition.