I have been on (and off of) a number of heart medications over the past eight years or so, all of which were prescribed by my cardiologist. With rare exceptions, none of them would exist if "Big Pharma" had not invested in research and waded through the regulatory mire to get them approved. Should we begrudge them a profit?
Now if they knowingly suppress a substance or procedure that would be effective but render one of their products unnecessary (example: chelation therapy to remove plaque from arteries, so no need for statins, of which they sell megatons), that would need to be addressed. But if there is little or no profit to be made, why bother?
Not at all. My reply to you was more of a flippant riff on that "ask your doctor" lawyer line that seems to appear in all the pharma commercials on TV. Just making a joke. As a normal red-blooded American, I believe any company is entitled to any profit they can fairly wrangle after going through the struggles of developing a product.
I do know, however, that there's a weird symbiotic relationship between pharma and doctors. Total anecdote time, but my cousin's ex wife was a pharma salesperson early on in her professional life. 1,000% of her job involved schmoozing doctors, directly, to get them - eventually - to "think about" prescribing her products where applicable. Doctors who played ball got the rockstar treatment.
I can totally see how doctors who liked that rockstar treatment would over-prescribe to continue getting it. Human nature, yes?