First, it is rather ludicrous to suggest the main difference in health care expenditures is linked to the US subsidising medicines. For example, while the US spend 17.1% of GDP in health, the UK spend 9.4 % (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.worldbank.org&#x2F;indicator&#x2F;SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.worldbank.org&#x2F;indicator&#x2F;SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS</a>). The 8 points of GDP difference represents close to 300 billions $, which would be a significant proportion of the <i>revenue</i> of all the pharmaceutical combined (I did not look much for reliable statistics of combined revenue, but saw that: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;topics&#x2F;1764&#x2F;global-pharmaceutical-industry&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;topics&#x2F;1764&#x2F;global-pharmaceutical-in...</a>, which suggests ~1 trillions USD).<p>It is also well documented that sales are significantly more expensive in the US than in Europe (marketing expenses are  higher than R&amp;D for most big pharmaceutical, and that proportion is significantly more so in the US). So without more analysis, you can&#x27;t say from higher sales whether the US are subsidising European healthcare or marketing departments.