It's a neutral business from my perspective (I've never needed a Mylan product). Medicine is a tricky space to operate in, and regulate, because monopolies exis

It's a neutral business from my perspective (I've never needed a Mylan product). Medicine is a tricky space to operate in, and regulate, because monopolies exist almost by default (if your company finds a cure for something, the gov. grants 'monopoly' rights for 20 years). Also Pharma companies often service small markets, but of extremely loyal customers (because their life depends on it). The space is essentially anticompetitive by design; even if there was a bunch capable pharma companies in the same space, they couldn't provide competition without major regulator hurdles. Just ask Sanofi, and Teva... Sanofi made AuviQ (EpiPen clone) but pulled out after regulators made Sanofi do a full-scale recall after several injector faults. Teva was set to provide its own generic version, but in the final stages of the review process, it was rejected by the FDA. The solution was to create policy (and to punish Mylan for breaking policy that already existed). Conducting an antitrust break-up of Mylan would have only made things worse imo.