I should have been more clear. I totally get, and agree, with your point. And I realize that my topic was implied in the article because of that point. I was just disappointed the author didn’t explicitly call out the payers too. The whole system is broken, it’s not just the pharma companies. I think it’s important to shine a light on the entire ecosystem if we’re ever going to have a prayer of combatting it.

I find it odd that the author did not really talk about the insurance companies at all. In the US, big pharma tends to make sure the payers (insurance companies) will actually cover a drug before they spend the money to bring it over the finish line. The payers look to maximize their revenue too, which means they are more interested in treatments that will (1) keep subscribers alive and paying into the system for the longest while (2) also reducing bigger more expensive health care costs down the road. Basically means that preventive treatments for younger people with private insurance get the priority. Pharma doesn’t decide their research priorities in a vacuum.

Wouldn’t that be considered witness tampering or something like that?