Cost of developing new drugs may be lower than industry claims: trial

Semaglutide retails for $17k USD/year in the US but costs only $60 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that the autoinjectors are "expensive", but not $17k/year and oral forms are coming online to make this item moot. In limited circumstances, excessive profits cross into the realm of price gouging and shouldn't be allowed by regulatory enforcement.

Microsoft Office retails for $250 but costs $0 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that installation CDs are "expensive", but not $250, and online downloads make this item moot.

Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication that can help solve an endemic/pandemic of Obesity I wonder?

There are times where the government, can, and should drop in and buy the entire IP associated with a medication. This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject.

Most of the research here is already partially funded by the tax payer through Government funds of colleges, etc etc anyway.

This isn't even something unheard of. The US has the power to unilaterally cancel patents.