That was the point of my whole Humira example though: high pharmaceutical prices did not fund its development.
This assertion that drugs have to be expensive or they can't be developed keeps getting repeated, but there's little evidence to support it and even less evidence that they need to be this expensive. This argument is further troubled by little details like drugs being 600% more expensive in the US than in other countries, indicative of more of a "how much money can we extract from vulnerable people" strategy than a "how much will it cost to develop the next great drug" strategy.
For extra credit, take a look at AbbVie's notable products (https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/abbvie/#abbvie-produ...) and see if you can identify any that they developed, or that they funded the development of.
To put this into perhaps more familiar terms, AbbVie's behavior is far closer to Intellectual Ventures than to Y Combinator, and yet people here keep defending it.
With the benefit of hindsight? I suspect you are correct. But pharma portfolios operate on the lognormal success model of VCs. Without the blockbusters, you can’t fund “development” of the failures that could lead to another blockbuster. (Of course, much if large pharma R&D is by way of strategic partnership and acquisition.)
As to your pricing of the Humira acquisition: I personally would have included some consideration to the existing market exclusivity of the drug. The transaction price is unlikely to be just the “replacement cost”.