Most shareholders would be up in arms if instead of a 5% loss in profit due to government monopsony, the company CEO decided to shut down the company and not sell anything at all, so the statement &quot;not required&quot; isn&#x27;t that relevant.<p>&quot;They do so of their own volition&quot;. No. You are expressing the Panglossian viewpoint that just because something happened it was the best choice.<p>We know from experimental economics that people make decisions different than rational market theory would predict. The heads of large pharmaceutical companies are not exempt from this irrationality.<p>Nor are all people in government short-sighted pennypinchers. The price negotiations also include the reality that some of the profits are turned into more research for future drugs. Hence the questions of what &quot;efficient&quot; and &quot;abuse&quot; means, which go into the pricing negotiations.