This reminds me of Martin Shkreli congress hearing [1]. A case of politicians blaming others for their own bad decisions.
They are talking about impoverished women with AIDS in Africa - and the drug company only has a license for the US, the drug itself has nothing to do with AIDS, and is free for half the patients and a $20 co-pay for the other half.
Your insurer isn't an endowment, it isn't a charity. Notwithstanding a few percent ROI on investing premiums, the only person paying these four digits is you. Or your employer. It's just amortized and spread among a group.
"It's not that bad, it's really only $20" is the big trick here. A much higher amount is being billed, and paid, even after negotiation. It's not coming from a magic money fairy.
Looks perfectly reasonable to me. Captive market, zero competition, reasonably fixed demand, and (best of all) disconnect between the person making the purchasing decisions and the one actually footing the bill.
This is the healthcare system our elected representatives have created for us. Either embrace it (which I guess means investing in an overweight portfolio of pharma companies) or send them a message to correct the core of the problem.