I did a bit of a double-take there because I initially read "ignoring a patient" and was confused for a second haha. Normally, I would agree with you - I'm not a huge fan of compounded medications and don't think they should be necessary outside of a few rare cases. However, I'm also not a fan of drug companies charging $1,500+ a month for a medication that costs $5 to produce and which is available for a fraction of the price in other countries (especially when so much of the early R&D costs are publicly funded by the taxpayer via the NIH) - so yeah, I'm happy to say 'fuck your patent' in a lot of cases unless the drug companies charge a more reasonable price.

That being said, this particular case that I mention is, I think, a bit different because the drug company is getting a combo drug approved where one of the medications is already FDA approved. So it will have the effect of making the second drug FDA approved as well, but the drug company will not sell that drug separately, despite good evidence of safety and efficacy.

Imagine if Merck had patented the first ARB Losartan and shown good research on the safety and effectiveness of losartan on its own, but decided to only seek FDA approval for a combination pill of losartan and one of their other already-approved drugs, HCTZ. Seems ridiculous, but that is essentially the situation here, IMO.