> if making new drugs was so cheap and easy, drug companies would be doing that in competition with each other They are. There is intense competition and lots

> if making new drugs was so cheap and easy, drug companies would be doing that in competition with each other They are. There is intense competition and lots of venture capital and research grants to fund research. > prices would be low as a result of that competition. Why? Patents end competition as soon as the research is successful. They have to compete to research the drug - and we see a vibrant competitive market for research - but they don't have to compete to sell the drug. We see this even when there are multiple brands competing to sell generic versions of drugs they didn't discover or spend R&D on. There is simply no market forces to lower medically necessary drug prices. The market is captive (people will die without certain medication), and thanks to patents, there is often no competition for years to allow people to price shop. I can buy ibuprofen or acetaminophen or aspirin for cheap at any drug store, because there is a competitive market for OTC pain meds. There is no OTC market for insulin, and people will die without it. Unsurprisingly, insulin is much more expensive, despite being discovered by a university and being over 100 years old. PreP (prevents HIV) research was entirely funded by US taxes, and the pills costs $2000/mo - despite being available from multiple companies including available as a generic. Why are companies that didn't pay to research the drug (and didn't take US Gov money to research it) charging $2000/mo? The only cost they incurred was manufacturing.