A health-research organization called ATI Advisory has released what I find to be a fascinating study about the research and development (R&D) spending on the list of 10 expensive drugs that Medicare selected for the price-negotiation process authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). You can find details about that announcement in an
Since there are non US Pharma organizations, would they stop developing drugs or would they step up their efforts if US Pharmas reduced their research? I would guess that the market for new drugs would be filled by these non US companies.
Oncology drugs have a small market, fortunately, from which to generate revenue. This is also a piece of the cost & availability puzzle. The rarer the condition, the smaller the market for the therapy, then there is the issue of development on the cost side. In the US economic system, the beneficiaries of therapies pay the costs, generally. If everyone globally shared the development/distribution cost more equitably, lack of patent laws or lack of enforcement would disincentivize development. It is a paradox, nightmare altogether, but in the US we have availability to drug therapies that are not available elsewhere; an uncomfortable reality.
Is there an argument for lower drug prices being an incentive to do more research? Katy Porter showed that for at least one pharma used very little profit for research. https://youtu.be/7axjk-9poKc?si=THkdUFtDlvfRdhSN