Yes they would have to eliminate NICE which is sometimes controversial - but I actually have a fair amount of faith in. It has been known to recommend drug use off-label as well as deny recommendation when all the available (weak?) Evidence suggests a benefit - but at an inflated price.
I think I did hear that this was part of their wishlist, but am 80% confident that this will not happen.
The monopoly thing is simply extending patent life. The perverse thing is that a patent has a limited lifespan. Maybe the patent should only start running out after it is launched in the marketplace. For example cannabis oil has been around for monkey's years. It's use is limited by its licence for use. To get a licence lots of expensive research has to be done. Because it has no patent...nobody wants to pay for the research.
On the other hand of course companies pay many many millions researching & developing drugs & a small number go through to eventually prescribed.
So it is understandable why Pharma want (& need) to make a handsome profit. Otherwise drugs we currently have for bacterial & viral cases for example eventually become useless. Then there are increasingly drugs being developed to treat rarer conditions - often criticised as being expensive, but make a huge difference to patients needing some medical intervential.
Check out Katy Piper's eye damage from her acid attack. A very expensive drug actually helped restore her sight. Worth the the money? She would say yes, many might argue not...but when you look at drug wastage by patients not taking what is prescribed, & the cost of the consequences (expensive hospitalisation for some conditions)...it is probably worth every penny!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
