I'm not even close to being a libertarian, but I find that people expect biotech companies to swallow billions of $ of loss as some sort of public good. Reports like these are an attempt to better harmonise their survival model. Companies need to make money to offset their losses, if not to profit. And while biotech companies can profit, these can very quickly be offset by the cost of a single clinical trial - IIRC it costs $1 billion to take any new drug from trial to completion now. Imagine discovering the next penicillin in your garage and then needing to raise $1 billion to cure people with it?
The analysts recommendations are fairly tame - companies should target cures for diseases with a lot of sufferers (a social good) + note that there are a LOT of genetic diseases that could benefit from a single-shot cure.
Again, not a sympathiser for "big pharma" if that even exists, but I wonder how sustainable a model this can be if companies can get their stock wiped out by a single bad trial. Pharma is notorious as a risky investment - which for some, might sound like a problem for rich people. But really, it then becomes a problem to fund experimental research, the kind that pays off.
I'm not looking to defend pharma companies here, only to frame a slightly more reasonable set of terms for this debate. I'm sure such reports have their harms - rare, incurable diseases will get less attention. But we need a solution that acknowledges the constraints, not one that merely wishes away the limits of capital and sustained long-term research.