Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. Technically, both are possible, but you're describing the situation inaccurately: a

Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. Technically, both are possible, but you're describing the situation inaccurately: and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process. The article says that they're providing the drug for free for those who can't afford it. So no one is dying due to the price being raised. Anyway, one poor outcome doesn't mean more regulation is needed. You need to weigh the costs against the benefits, and when that is done, the costs end out higher, even on the existing regulation regime. Can you propose specific regulations that would fix this, and not cause more harm elsewhere?