As others begin producing it market pressure will hopefully drive those costs down.
It’s also worth noting that some insurance companies have recently begun classifying it as preventative medicine (as it should’ve been this whole time) and covering it at 100%.
That's the idea, but it doesn't really work that way.
https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-system...
> One of the ways branded drug manufacturers prevent competition is simple: cash. In so-called “pay for delay” agreements, a brand drug company simply pays a generic company not to launch a version of a drug. The Federal Trade Commission estimates these pacts cost U.S. consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion in higher drug costs each year.
and this fun one...
> Another way pharmaceutical firms are thwarting generics is by restricting access to samples for testing. Generic drug makers need to be able to purchase a sample of a brand-name product to conduct bioequivalence testing. That’s because they have to prove they can make a bioequivalent product following the current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) standard. These manufacturers don’t need to conduct clinical trials like the original drug company did.
> But the original drug developer often declines to sell drug samples to generics manufacturers by citing “FDA requirements,” by which they mean the agency’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program. The idea behind this program is a good one: give access to patients who will benefit from these personalized medicines, and bar access for patients who won’t benefit and could be seriously harmed. However, brand drug makers are citing these requirements for the sole purpose of keeping generics from coming to market.
And if one generic manufacturer was able to get approved, then the flood gates are open. It won't limit anything if all those additional patents were found invalid (which they would need to be for the 1st generic to be approved).