you're suggesting that the entire difference in cost/benefit between the US and EU model is due to research and development? that seems wildly unsubstantiated. the google blurb puts it at 6% of US spending, but its unclear how much of that is actual research and how much is product development and marketing.
Not “due to” in the sense that that’s where the money directly goes, but concerns about slowing medical innovation are one of the big arguments that are raised against reform proposals in the US. In Europe, my understanding is that this is broadly not a concern and few health systems take fully incentivizing new therapies as a design criterion.
