My fine scenario means this:
If a company expects to actually pay $100 per day on average for an average patient's care, then the fine would be (and let's assume average daily enforcement costs 10% of the daily average cost):
2*(100/.25+100*.1)=820.
The company would have a choice between paying the $100 daily to actually insure the individual, OR pay $820 per day to be in non-compliance.
If you're going to use fines as an enforcement tool, then you have to be sure that they're high enough to force companies to comply.
Here's an easy example:
Let's say it costs $10 per day to park on the street in the city. Assume, also, that you would be able to avoid the ticket 10% of the time either because someone fails to enforce it, or by appealing it through the courts.
If the fine for not paying at the meter is $8, then you should obviously take the ticket every single time.
If the fine for not paying at the meter is $10, then you should also take the fine every single time, because you won't have to pay 1 in ten times on average and you're breaking even at worse.
If the fine for not paying at the meter is $11, then you should also skip the meter every single time. Paying 9 times out of ten, on average, means that you will save a dollar over paying at the meter.
It isn't until you hit a fine of $12 that it makes sense to consider paying at the meter.
If you're a corporation in the US at that point, you still wouldn't consider paying the fine there. You would consider the cost of your lawyers/lobbyists/accounts/etc. and try to force the percentage of time you can get away with violating the law higher rather than actually paying the fine.