Not to be too snarky but to the question in the article, “The question for health systems: how much are one-time therapies worth?”, you mean like vaccines? Presumably, it should cost a similar amount.
To the article's point, there is currently a dynamic where long term/chronic prescriptions such as anti-depression drugs "win out" relative to antibiotics & vaccines, which have the same pricing issue. It's mitigated by the large out-of-patent portfolio and (especially for vaccines) the large potential volume, but the problem is there.
To some extent, this is a problem economist don't like. The pricing system shouldn't matter too much. If X has Y value and A cost, those (alongside competition, which should be driving price to A)... If the value/efficacy is identical, those are supposed to be the main determinates of price.
Non-academic pricers understand that these pricing paradigms are big determinates though, in practice. Membership vs pay-as-you-go. Software & updates vs SAAS. These change demand & pricing dynamics enormously.
A one-time pill, with measured effectiveness against depression on par with one-a-day alternatives is very unlikely to make as much money, in practice... blackboard reasoning be damned.
Hard to even break even if you're charging $100 and treating 2000 patients.