Wow, another pharmaceutical/gov't thread. This is a tricky topic. I see both sides.
I think, on one hand, people take for granted the liability and cost associated with medical care. It isn't just the cost of producing something. It isn't even the added cost of the research behind something. It is also the cost of law suits when something goes wrong. I mean, the Epi pen example above is perfect. There was competition, and both prices were low in order to be competitive. One of the two options, however, turned out to be unreliable and wouldn't deliver on the promise for the low cost, so it was pulled. More liability shifts to one company, and more profit should be had to cover that liability.
FDA regulation, torte law, etc. - all may be additive factors behind this, but economics dictates profits of a company be maximized. It is actually unethical to operate in any other way, but that becomes an economics argument.
We often forget how far we have come in a short time with medicine. I have a client who told me a story once. He is now 77 years old. When he was 13 (64 years ago), his dad had a stroke. They called the doctor. The doctor said, "Have him lie down."
That was the best medical advice someone got for a stroke 65 years ago. There was no, "Call 911 and rush him to the emergency room and we will perform $200,000 worth of operations on him and save his life."
In 65 years, we have learned and discovered so much and we take it for granted and assume it should be free and available to everyone, even the people who cannot afford it. Reality, however, bites. It isn't fair. If you don't have the resources to survive, you die. THAT is someone living in reality. If you don't have enough food, you die. If you don't have enough heat, you die. If you don't have sufficient shelter, you die. But we've become so soft and disconnected from reality as a society that we don't even realize this anymore. If you don't have the resources and are incapable of creating the resources to get $300,000 in surgeries, it should not be a given that you get those options for free. I know that sounds cold, but it's unethical to steal from others who have, just because you do not. It would be no different than stealing a loaf of bread and then saying, "But I can't afford it and I will die if I don't get it, so you owe it to me." Not to mention, the people who could afford it are the only reason those options are available to begin with.
Should we try to mitigate and provide expanded access, yes - but reality bites and we can only fight that tide so much.
On the other hand, I've been researching Alzheimer's Disease a lot lately. Over the past 2-3 years I've seen some "ground breaking studies" that suggest arginine deficiency may be a big part of the pathology behind AD. This is interesting because we've identified symptoms (like Tau and Amyloid proteins/plaques), but never a pathology behind AD. We've focused on treating these symptoms, as if the symptoms ARE the disease.
Then this comes along and it's ground breaking and provides some insight into a possible pathology for AD. And it suggests the proteins aren't the cause, but a secondary effect, and maybe even a protection against the disease. Then research comes out and suggests these proteins may actually have an antibiotic impact within the brain to further support this. And the pieces start to fall into place.
Only, I have 3-4 studies BEFORE 2014 suggesting similar issues and pointing in this direction. Including 1 from 1998. And this study suggests that many of the treatments that would be recommended for avoiding cardiovascular disease that are safe and effective, may also be safe and effective for AD treatment. If this 1998 study were true, it would have meant less research was needed than anticipated, and possibly not as many new drugs would need to be developed. So why did it take 16 years for this to come back around?
It didn't occur to me until a few weeks later. Baby Boomers. This section of the population buys a TON of drugs to MANAGE diseases. Only, now they are coming into the age where they will be getting AD. So AD will go up, and without a cure, the profits on other medications, like diabetes drugs, will fall because the population will take a hit. Suddenly, this direction that is almost 20 years old is picked back up. I am starting to wonder and if, in the next 5 years we see huge strides in AD treatment, it isn't a smoking gun - but it's an interesting coincidence.
As far as Kratom, it's just more of the same problem. People will always abuse drugs. People do stupid things. Laws don't stop people from doing stupid things. If we all had access to every substance available in the world, with no regulation, some people would die unnecessarily. On the other hand, other people would have access to things that could greatly improve their lives. I'm not sure laws are the answer to this equation, they didn't help with marijuana.
And more laws just increase the costs/liabilities behind things. It's a vicious cycle.