Started a few different replies, but here I am with nothing. Let's see.

I did not like this article very much. I'm sure the author, as an insider, has witnessed funding fail to align with optimal benefit in the medical research field. But I disagree with him (and with b_b^) that such a cheap -- and yes, it is comparatively damn cheap overall no matter how much the trials will cost -- and effective treatment will be completely ignored. I wonder if, were the author to go through and name individual cases in which he thinks this phenomenon occurred, I wouldn't be able to pick apart each one, or at least raise ceteris paribus doubts.

Health care as a science is about a million times more developed than it was 50 years ago, which in turn was a million times better than 1915, etc. This is because health is the one thing that will never fail to be demanded, so in a sense the health care industry is the last place I would look for cost/benefit misalignments (on the producers' side only! obviously).

^hospital margins fall in the weird science category; they may seem low on paper but that does not equate to a lack of liquidity or an unwillingness to invest like it might in another industry