The unlimited medical allowance was a just trade-off by our legislature. What they traded was not allowing for punitive damages for insurance companies that act in bad faith. This assured two things. 1) People would not sue in hopes of getting a big payoff in punitive award even if they weren't seriously injured and 2) Expensive medical bills for those seriously injured would be taken care of.
I speak from experience. I was in an auto accident from which I suffered serious injuries. As soon as the insurance company discovered I was seriously injured, they denied benefits, paying a doctor $10,000 to say I was not injured despite objective findings and the opinion of several other (unconnected) physicians. In doing so, the insurance company was effectively saying - "We don't care how many doctors say you are injured, the one we paid to say you're not disagrees. Sue us."
As a result, I have permanent injuries from which I will not recover. This could have been avoided if I would have had surgery at the proper time.
If you are concerned about spending $500 a year on car insurance, think of the cost when you're faced with a million in long-term care.
This is yet another example of conservative's incessant beholding of monied interests at the expense of the general public disguised as concern for the average joe.
If any no-fault reforms need to be enacted, it should be reform that disallows insurance companies from withholding benefits unless the matter goes directly before a magistrate with both parties bringing their evidence to the table.
You would see cost savings in the situation not developing to a lengthy settlement process, reduced medical costs from non-exasperation of injuries that require medical attention and reduced costs in insurance companies being wary of paying out ten grand to get a doctor to lie for them each time an accident victim is seriously injured.