What does bad PR mean for them? Nobody's going to refuse treatment if they would otherwise afford it.
Sadly, that can't prevent pharma companies from arbitrarily jacking up prices less dramatically on many other drugs and going "under the radar" as far as public outrage is concerned. For that, you need careful and assiduous regulation. But in an era where people run companies that do real things like a hedge fund, I am doubtful things will get better anytime soon.
Do you have any particular proposal to solve the problem? Saying "regulate!" doesn't help unless you can provide specifics.
Sort of. Their competitor-plaintiffs are no longer going concerns, and MS are still going relatively strong; so one might argue that the "trouble" was of little consequence. The length of time all of that took to wind its way through the courts means that patients will die waiting for the market/courts to sort itself out.
Technically, both are possible, but you're describing the situation inaccurately:
and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process.
The article says that they're providing the drug for free for those who can't afford it. So no one is dying due to the price being raised.
Anyway, one poor outcome doesn't mean more regulation is needed. You need to weigh the costs against the benefits, and when that is done, the costs end out higher, even on the existing regulation regime.
Can you propose specific regulations that would fix this, and not cause more harm elsewhere?