What are you talking about? The premise of this product was that it cost a fraction of what existing treatments cost, and was far better. That's the opposite of the dynamic you just described.
Even most of the folks described in the article did not have an initial reaction of "It only costs a fraction of existing methods!"
Instead, their reaction was that the price was set by forces that had nothing to do with the R&D of the drug, and by that measure, it costs far much more that it otherwise could be. When the patent expires, a generic alternative will likely be made for far cheaper.