both britain and france have monopoly government price controls, cenk. that's why it's so cheap there. in canada, we balance it out by calculating a floating average over oecd countries, which gives the drug companies a bit of extra profit - largely due to the lack of price controls in the united states - but keeps it down, comparably. we're not a model, though - we need reform here, too. the problem in the united states is that you don't have those regulatory systems in place to keep prices down, not that you don't have a "free market".
it's economics 101 that a drug oligopoly will act like a monopoly and collude to set prices, not compete against each other. why would they want to compete against each other? competition hurts producers. you'd have to write laws that force them to compete with each other. but, that would cost so much in enforcement that it wouldn't be worth it, overall - and the enforcement agencies would just end up getting bribed, anyways.
my understanding of bernie's legislation is that it is meant to prevent lengthy drug patents. even the soft left has always opposed intellectual property rights for things like drug patents; you don't have to get as strictly anti-propertarian as i am to develop an opposition to drug patents, especially timeframes around them. but, the point of stripping patents in every other advanced country has been to allow the government to set price controls, which is often in conjunction with universal pharmacare coverage.
france, especially, has a very strong incentive to keep drug prices down - namely that the system is fully socialized. and, that is the most efficient approach to keeping costs down, not long-debunked and discarded intellectual masturbation about "free markets".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pf17uz2S9A&t=475s