How do you know this? How do you measure “better”? Something like QOL improvement per dollar? Have you done (or read) some large study on this or something?
HIV, in my life time was a death sentence. Now people are living almost full lives.
Less dead people is a pretty good metric for drug development.
Oh, and as a nice little bonus they also curb substance use disorder!
Similarly, companies that patent HIV drugs purposely hold off on bringing new, better drugs to market until the patents for their old drugs expire. For example, Gilead held on to Descovy and timed its launch to conveniently match up with the patent expiration of their drug Truvada. It's planned obsolescence in drug form.
Truvada had common complications like kidney damage and failure, and bone density loss, that Descovy mitigated. Had Gilead brought Descovy to market sooner, instead of holding on to it until Truvada's patent expiration, people could have had the option to choose between the two drugs, and those at risk of complications wouldn't have received needless kidney damage/failure and bone deterioration from their only option on the market.
During Truvada's patent period, Gilead raised prices practically every year, and a drug that already cost $2k a month suddenly cost over $4,500 a month towards the end of its patent protection period. In other countries, it cost $40.
Gilead is now doing the same thing with Descovy, charging $2,600 a month with rising prices for a drug that costs far less in sane countries.
Just because things might be "better", doesn't mean they're perfect, and doesn't mean they don't need to improve.
As an aside, these are drugs that prevent the acquisition of HIV in the first place. AIDS could virtually be eradicated in the US if HIV prophylaxis was widespread and affordable.