Subsidized may not have been the exact right word. I'm open to a better one.
Now if a company spends it's billions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and it is BILLIONS. And they are blocked by governments from charging a fee that reimbursed those costs AND brings a profit within a "reasonable" time, why would they develope it?
So if it costs billions to bring a drug to market, all the research, treating, manufacture, distribution ect., And there is no profit in countries other than the unregulated US, why wouldn't they charge whatever the insurance companies can get the US to pay? If we in the US tried to force drug companies to drop prices to be equal to the rest of the world, the rest of the world drug prices would go up. Either in direct cost or increased taxes to cover the difference.
Is that subsidizing, in a way? Getting the consumers in one country to cover the R&D so that the drugs are available at a cheaper price in other countries? I know, it can be a touchy subject.
Now, drug companies could develope these drugs, figure the number of people that would need those drugs over the near to mid term future, then divide cost of development, delivery, and profit by every patient and have all patients, wether in the US, Canada, UK, Zimbabwe, or where ever pay exactly the same. That would bring costs down... From a US standpoint anyway. But other countries costs might go up but there would be no argument of subsidizing. Drug "A" costs $3 a dose regardless of where you live.
I always tell everyone who complains about companies not being in it for the greater good... Corporations have no soul. Everything is profit. Oh yeah, governments are corporations.