AEI is Koch-funded as balls nowadays and, while it occasionally produces worthwhile analysis, can be pretty sketchy as well. Not only that but your link isn't even the result of a study just a George W. Bush healthcare aide who's in AEI talking on a cable political news show. The guy says something incredibly misleading in the first 15 seconds (that the Obama administration unilaterally controls drug prices). If you watched the video his argument is entirely hypothetical (that price schedules used for surgeries could be used for prescriptions, not that they are or were), so you either just went to www.I'mright.com, searched, and found a headline that sounded good without doing anything else but reading the headline or you just expected nobody else to dig far enough into it to see that the AEI guy presented an entirely hypothetical situation which got mangled into a flashy headline.
He even says that we don't have a drug cost problem aside from small, substantive specialty drugs. (A very suspect assertion, addressed later in this post) He says the problem is people are underinsured (debatable, because the drugs still cost a fortune to health insurance companies and would still propagate a systemic problem even if only people with "good" health insurance used them. You must not follow biotech markets as firms are making fortunes off buying up patents or production lines and being a local monopoly for a single drug and thus able to charge any price without having to withstand the vagaries of a competitive market. The headline rates you see are only present in drugs where firms have a monopoly or oligopoly on the drug) and lays that at the feet of Obamacare because more people are underinsured than pre-Obamacare, but neglects to mention that the gains in insuring the uninsured are almost the exactly the proportion that didn't have insurance in the first place, so the drugs at the consumer level are still cheaper than they would have been otherwise.
The rest of his argument is entirely theoretical and nearly lie by omission because there's a ton of extra factors that if he is any sort of expert he fucking knows about. For example, pharma M&A leading to depressed R&D which leads to more M&A as the look to poach outside firms who have developed promising drugs and buy them out instead of taking on the risk and long-term investment structure of R&D themselves, which is profitable in the short term for individual companies (no more R&D budget eating profits) but bad for the industry as a whole because R&D is more concentrated in small firms who are less capable of innovation. M&A as stated previously leads to monopoly power. Do you think epipens are so expensive because of Obamacare or because Mylan owns over 90% of the market for them and thus don't face the full pricing pressure of a competitive market? The largest bout of pharma M&A in history has occurred from 2010 to now and in that time 25% of generics saw their price double and nearly 5% rose by 500%.
Here's how biotech often investing works: you hear about a firm with a profitable drug, you invest and then you wait for Pfizer or Valiant or some other big dog to pick it up for twice the sticker price.
You should really know already to be suspect of anything that tells you all the animus for as complex as a system as prescription drug prices can boiled down to a single factor, especially when a majority of other outlets say differently. Here's a far better overview of the issue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5278914/