Such is the way with most technological advances, where the high price initially payed by the rich is turned into more productivity and lower production costs, resulting in greater availability.
The "cost" of production of medical technologies has very little to do with their price, in the US anyway.
We shouldn't discard a system because it's not perfect. The alternative could be much worse.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that things become _equal_ over time; it's rare to find wealthy people who will purchase the same kind of cutlery as the common person, to continue your analogy - for various reasons (fear of feeling inferior, ego, or just plain being oversold on it by marketing/salespeople).
The point that the article appears to be making is that healthcare advances are applying for the wealthy - but in fact _reversing_ in some cases for the poor. That's not fair or desirable.