@La_chica_gomela Actually there is not a flaw in the theory. Here are some examples:
Abbott has a drug called Norvir used in the treatment of HIV. It has to be refrigerated. They had hopes that the drug would be used in a certain dosage and priced it accordingly. Over time, it turned out that 1/5 the dose actually helped make the other drugs a patient was taking be more effective. Abbott did two things—1) they raised the price of the drug 500% and 2) they created a aversion that didn’t require refrigeration, but did not make it available (until recently) except as part of a combination with another drug they created (Kaletra).
Then there are Combivir and Trizivir. The drug company knew their drug (AZT) was going to go off patent and be available as a generic. So they put AZT with one other drug in a single pill to make Combivir and with two other drugs in a single pill to make Trizivir. Obviously patients would rather take fewer drugs, so although AZT is available as a generic, very few people take it.
Then there is the entire history of AZT itself which was originally developed, using government dollars, as a failed cancer drug. When HIV came along, it showed some efficacy, so BurroughsWellcome (at the time) fought to have the patent for 17 years at the price the market would bear for something that was developed with tax dollars and sat on the shelf.
Then there is Lexapro which is pharmaceutically the same as its predecessor, Celexa. The drug reps gave samples to docs who started their patients on Lexapro when Celexa was going off patent.
It goes on and on. If consumers are well informed, they can avoid some of the nonsense but many folks just take what is prescribed without awareness that their doctor got money from this or that drug company. The good news is there has been a recent change in the law that limits what drug companies can do to persuade doctors to use their products.