There are some who argue against the development of new drugs at all:
The health of the nation (and indeed of the world) would be better served, I believe, if we concentrated on treating patients effectively with the agents that we already have at our disposal than by the constant development of new drugs. Whilst costly new drugs may benefit some patients, I strongly suspect that they also deprive other patients of effective, but less spectacular, treatments by eating into limited health budgets. In other words, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, new drugs rob Peter to pay Paul, and therefore get the wholehearted support of Paul.
The alternative proposal would be that the costs of new drugs are regulated in such a way that they have a zero impact on health budgets and a proven net benefit on the health of the nation.
I don't agree with this idea, but there's an element of truth to it. We tend to view drug development as an unambiguous positive -- more medications are always better, more formulas are always superior. But, in fact, there are limited resources, and the money spent tracking down newer and more powerful treatments is money we could choose to devote to broadening access to less costly, less spectacular, but very effective treatments. Pharmaceutical development is undoubtedly a marvel, but it's one with real costs, and there are a host of alternative ways to structure the industry that could emphasize its strengths while decreasing its drawbacks.
