My assumption is that big pharma has its tentacles in a little deep.
an alternative view is that the existing "Medical Systems" transcend humans and is itself a repository of
knowledge and evidence going back hundreds of years (see
Royal Society formed on 28 November 1660 which eventually led to more specific disciplines as knowledge grew) and is itself an entity which has as its basis the vetting and understanding of knowledge to bring to its decision base such principles as evidence and veracity.
Its not perfect, not least because it is filled with imperfect creatures like humans, but it is indeed an evolving thing. However it has indeed cleaned up the snake oil and shonks which probably underpinned medicine for most of human history (see witch doctors or even homeopathy).
Whether individuals do or do not get better outcomes from a specific approach is moot, but when this becomes statistically significant (
the better outcomes) it will be evaluated and incorporated into the body of medicine (as indeed many things already have) (
resistance is futile).
Short term "big pharma" may have an influence on "Medical Systems" but I would view that the noise of their mutually competing systems also cancels itself out (rather like
Brownian Motion jiggles dust but you need wind to move it).
I also view these Organisations in a Manturanan way (see
biology of cogntion) in that they are indeed living and adapting organisms (a rule set, which is indeed what biochemistry is and we humans the hardware that runs it).
sorry about the deep dive into philosophy... myself I personally lean towards an interconnected-ness of problems, a more holistic view rather than a reductionist view. However sometimes that can be problematic too.
*(normal programing will now resume)