Second, while the costs are considerable, expense is not out of line with many other treatments that are not making the headlines. Check into the costs of renal transplantation. And my wife recently had a cataract replaced, a commonplace procedure, the final bill was >$5000.
The issue is the real total costs of treating vs. not treating the disease. It's necessary to take into account the costs of doctor visits, medications, disability, loss of productivity, increased likelihood of illness among family members due to stress, among many other factors.
If a patient can be restored to adequate functionality, and after the Hep C treatment require no more than routine health care, the $84K might in fact be a bargain.
Until we get it clear that we must consider the true total costs of fully treating vs. not treating an illness, we will never be able to make rational decisions about structuring a health care system.
Unless proven otherwise, I'm convinced the system with the lowest total cost is providing care that patients actually need. We only make matters worse by the focus on "cutting health care costs" vs. reducing the total economic burden of illness.