"In this case, the public benefits due to diseases coming to market that wouldn't otherwise."
I know that's not exactly what you meant to say and I understand and appreciate the theory. My questions have to do (primarily anyway) with the economics of it. I also wonder whether the program was intended to reward companies where the pediatric application of the drug is incidental and its development was geared to the treatment of an ailment that is less rare in adults and would have likely occurred in the absence of any incentives.