"IPAB would be akin to the idea of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Past BRAC panels have been successful in eradicating redundant military bases."

IMO it's a mistake to compare military spending with healthcare spending. Not just because they're different public-serving entities, but because legislators can't even agree on the role of government in healthcare at all:

When Congress tries to control Medicare spending, Rockefeller complained in 2009, there are “too many lobbyists involved and it's very, very difficult if you have a lobbyist that comes in … who represents an industry in your state which could gain an enormous advantage by having an increase in the reimbursement rates for Medicare , for oxygen or for something else.”


Rather than members of Congress deciding what Medicare will pay for, Rockefeller said, “These are decisions that should be made by professionals, people who are public policy professionals. They're not lobbyists. And they're not necessarily sitting with congressmen or senators.”


Uwe Reinhardt, a health care economist at Princeton University and an IPAB supporter, said Congress “micro-manages in the most amazing way” in deciding how Medicare operates.

And yet, he said, members of Congress are “beset by incredible conflicts of interest. With Congress, you really always have to worry: Whom do they represent: the people, or particular interest groups that give them money?” Companies that sell services to Medicare also contribute to congressional campaigns, he noted.
Sounds like an argument for a US version of a NHS, single-payer, Medicare for all, or a public option---or any combo hybrid that would get us into the top tiers of providing excellence and quality of care---instead of just being big spenders on a crappy system.