Hmm, I see what you mean and I do realise you are talking from a US viewpoint, where commerce and medicine are perhaps somewhat unhealthily intertwined. Speaking as a Brit, we get issues about the
non-availablity of drugs like that on the National Health Service, because new treatments have to be weighed up on a cost/benefit scale by a board called NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) and the most doubtful, in terms of high cost or weakness of benefit, don't make the cut. So then we get sob-stories in the papers about some doe-eyed kid who wants to see another Christmas but won't because of the "evil accountants" or "savage Tory cuts", according to your political preference.
But someone has to make the call: money is not unlimited.
My wife got treated, towards the end of her cancer, privately and at vast cost, with a couple of experimental drugs (pre-NICE approval) , but the oncologist was quite wise in counselling about the benefits versus the side effects. Nothing she was given had a drastic impact on her quality of life, and perhaps we were fortunate that it was obvious when her time was up and we didn't fight it. The only procedure that I think was arguably a waste of (NHS) money was the artificial intravenous feeding programme, when her digestive system gave up completely (it was ovarian cancer). That cost a lot to set up and calibrate for her, we had loads of equipment delivered to the house and nurses to operate it, and in the end it only bought her another 10 days or so. With hindsight we should probably have said "game over" a bit sooner.
But that was the only thing I think we might have done differently. The oncologist and her drugs kept her going, with full enjoyment of a busy working life, for at least five years longer than she would have lasted without them. And when you are bringing up a kid, those years are invaluable. So I am rather impressed with what drugs can do.