Financial promoters – Innovation. Financial rewards have always been an important motivational tool. This is a powerful incentive that has pushed companies to innovate and, as a result, given rise to some of the most revolutionary drugs in history. Innovation is very powerful but often comes at a high price. Imposing a price limit on medicines also puts a brake on the emphasis and application of innovation in the industry. Research and development (R&D) of any drug is a lengthy and costly process fraught with uncertainties. Even if most costs are carefully calculated, there will always be unforeseen obstacles in the process that require additional expenditure to resolve. It is imperative to incur these additional expenses to move forward, but in an environment of controlled prices, this would also mean a reduction in profits for producers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayIn general, the most revolutionary drugs are those that require the most investment, but even so, not all heavy investments guarantee not the success of the products and therefore, it will always be a risky bet. This is difficult for pharmaceutical companies because they need a certain degree of financial freedom to bear the costs necessary to explore different areas of medicine and research. To be incentivized to do so, companies must know that they will be remunerated accordingly. One example is ongoing R&D efforts for severe sepsis. This disease affects 500,000 people each year worldwide and has a mortality rate of 35-50%, but no promising treatments have been discovered despite decades of research (Calfee 1060). Only in recent years has a clinical trial shown progress in a treatment that significantly reduces mortality rates. If companies had given up, they would not have discovered this cure that is saving thousands of people today. Although R&D for this disease has been challenging, many pharmaceutical companies have engaged for decades because they all possessed the “small probability, high gain” mindset (Calfee 1061). Companies pursue R&D for less common but more difficult conditions because if they are successful, they gain the patent right and exclusive ability to control the prices of their drug. However, they also understand that if they fail, they likely will not recoup their high costs (Calfee 1061). With a drug price cap, the incentive to innovate would be removed because the risks and rewards do not align. From a business perspective, there is virtually no reason to invest heavily in R&D for a treatment with low risk of success and low returns on investment. This rationale was proven in a health plan proposed by the Clinton administration in 1993. a provision in the plan to cap the prices of all breakthrough drugs (Calfee 1063). Over the next two years, while this idea was being debated, national annual R&D spending by pharmaceutical companies had already declined by 7%. (Calfee 1063). Clearly, businesses became reluctant to spend as uncertainty about cost recovery in the future increased. The idea of ​​a price ceiling led to lean accounting and companies' desire to innovate ultimately diminished. Innovation is the main driver of..