No, I believe it to be the opposite at least based on the example below. (as I understand it)

Here is an excerpt from an old Zacks Small-Cap Research Report dated 01/19/16 that may explain it a bit more when RVX is compared with Praluent and Repatha. Red highlighting added for effect:

"Value Proposition Resverlogix hopes that successful pharmaceutical partnerships or licensing agreements for apabetalone, similar to the one with Hepalink, will help overcome the cost burden, lengthy development time, and high attrition rates, while helping to advance the drug through clinical trials and drug development stages. Management hopes that this will ultimately lead to commercialization of the drug. Through extensive modeling and ongoing outreach to key opinion leaders (KOLs), management believes that if apabetalone shows a 20-30% relative risk reduction of MACE in the Phase 3 trial, the pharmacoeconomics of apabetalone could be quite appealing for the near future. The company believes it will cost around $3,000-$4,200 per year once it hits the market depending on the specific efficacy scenario (20-30% RRR). Management believes that at this price point, the drug would be in the preferred co-pay status (Tier 2, which comes right after generics in Tier 1), and if so, there is a very strong opportunity for preferred reimbursement. Greater than $5,000 would likely put the drug in Tier 3 and require prior authorization. It’s also important to remember that this is a sliding scale and that numbers needed to treat (NNT) and the cost to prevent an event must also be taken into consideration. Efficient NNT are an important assessment in the accretive value added by reimbursement and payer groups. NNT is calculated as the inverse of the ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction): NNT = 1/ARR, where ARR = PER (Placebo Event Rate) – TER (Treatment Event Rate). For example, when looking at Praluent® (alirocumab) and Repatha™ (evolocumab) with a reported $14,600 and $14,100 per year treatment cost per patient, respectively, some would argue that the cost to prevent an event could be close to or exceeding $1 million for one year as per the analysis of the NNT, in this case 63 for alirocumab and 81 for evolocumab (vs. 21 for RVX-208 from pooled SUSTAIN and ASSURE trial data), based on annualized treatment therapy. Even if the costs of these drugs were lowered to around $10,000 annually per patient, the total cost to avoid such an event with the medications would be approximately $600,000 to $800,000 for one year. If apabetalone can illustrate a greater than 20-25% relative risk reduction over standard of care medicines, pricing will be a major advantage over agents such as PCSK9 inhibitors. If approved, and if apabetalone costs mirror what management is currently predicting, we believe this could be a game changer from the viewpoint of payer groups. While the jury is still out on RVX-208, management believes that the drug is positioned to be one of the most promising drugs in development for the prevention and reduction of atherosclerotic related CVDs."   

Koo